10 Little Pieces of Advice to Take or Leave

I loved this list of advice from nakedpastor :

  1. Lead leaderlessly. That is, lead in a non-leading kind of way. Serve. Step out of the leadership position continually. Perpetually. Create the vacuum for others to lead and serve.
  2. Don’t go anywhere. No goal. No destiny. No vision. Keep it real and keep it present. You either serve the vision or you serve the people.
  3. Don’t ever think of the “church” as some kind of entity ASIDE from the real flesh and blood people that constitute it. The church isn’t the entity, even though it wants to be and constantly endeavors to be.
  4. Allow worship and expression of all sorts to be indigenous. Never think of worship as instruction. It is God-ward, not human-ward.
  5. If prayer is always in the form of a song and never said or read, so be it.
  6. Allow freedom of expression, even if it’s going to be weird, uncomfortable, and questionable. Judge it afterwards. Yes, when done with mutual respect, we do get used to this honest and authentic form of dialog and learning.
  7. Let sinners play too.
  8. Question everything.
  9. Never be overly impressed with another person. No one is good but God alone.
  10. Don’t be afraid to kill the mood. Always be honest and free, no matter how uncomfortable you might cause others to feel.

I especially liked number's 1, 6 and 8. As for 2, I agree that I'm over the vision thing, but I do think it's important to hold to 'values' and it may well be that some of those values are future-focussed. I also worry a bit about the 'serve the people' line since I think that's what too many churches do and become big clubs for members. Of course if you take the broadest possible approach to 'the people' then that's better , although I still think our values need to include an orientation toward serving the 'non-people' parts of creation too.

Flee to the Desert

I'm now taking a new blog, nakedpastor (Darren put me onto ASBO Jesus, which in turn took me to nakedpastor). And this morning's post clicked with me, following my anti-institutional rantings of the other day.

Every once in a while I come to the realization that I don’t believe in church as it is. I don’t wish to support it. I don’t want to perpetuate its existence. I don’t want to reinforce its rules, its politics, its agendas, its programs. I want to get out of it altogether. I yearn to remove myself from this game completely and forever. I want, like the earliest hermits such as St. Anthony in Egypt, to retreat to the remotest desert and weave baskets. And I would do this not only as a way to get back in touch with raw simplicity and truth, but also as a demonstration of protest against the ecclesiastical system and its managers. Within, I’m done with it. When, oh when, will we ever ever realize that all we are doing with all of our ideas, visions, agendas, revolutions and reforms is tweaking that which imprisons us? We are the captains of modification. The result: people come along, take one look at the dolled-up corpse of our refined church, and say, “My, it looks really good!” just before we close the casket!

[From Flee to the Desert]

God could have created aliens too: Vatican

The search for extraterrestrial life does not contradict belief in God, the pope's chief astronomer said on Tuesday, adding that some aliens might even be innocent of the original sin. [From God could have created aliens too: Vatican]
How bizzare. Wasn't there a Sci-fi story about just this issue? IIRC it's about a priest who ends up being crucified by the aliens who expect him to be resurrected and discover their sin when he hangs there dead?

Values 2

A few more values that have come to me (mostly while in the shower) over the last couple of days.

7. Journeying together. There's so many important allusions in this phrase. The idea of journey immediately says that we're not 'there'. Epistemic humility. A sense of movement. Journeying together implies mutuality and equality. It seems to speak of questioning together rather than telling someone else 'the answer' which I have (and have entirely correctly).

8. Following God in the Way of Jesus. This phrase which Emergent types seem to use highlights the Christian character of the Way, but also its praxis orientation. It also seems to leave open the possibility that others may (genuinely) be following God in other ways - a notion that I am quite comfortable with.

Institutions 2

In a comment on my recent post about Institutions, I said that for me there was an important balance in being part of the institution but never feeling wholly comfortable as part of the institution. So I was interested to read Pete Rollins saying what seems like a similar thing in the Introduction of his new book, "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" (Peter Rollins), the preface and Introduction of which are available for free here. I'm now really looking forward to this book (to be released in June).

Values

I said I was going to post about the Uniting Church, and still plan to do that, but I've just been having some thoughts I wanted to capture about the things I do (or would) value in Church life. These are partly triggered by beginning to read Diana Butler Bass' book, "Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church Is Transforming the Faith".

These thoughts are fairly unformed as yet, but are still central to my thinking at the moment.

1. Reaching back — reaching forward. I think it's really important to value the whole, historic Christian tradition. Too many churches have lost a sense of their place within the broader tradition and have jettisoned any link with history or tradition. But at the same time, the past cannot act as an anchor, blocking us from moving forward into the new future into which God is calling us. We must be churches of today and even tomorrow — not churches of yesterday. I think one of the most important tasks for leaders in the church is to enable that creative tension between tradition and newness, between consistency with past visions and struggling into new visions, enabling the Church with integrity to reach back and reach forward.

2. Graciousness. Grace is clearly at the heart of the Christian gospel — what we experience from God and what we are called to. But for me the word 'grace' has so much baggage. Talk of 'tough grace' and 'cheap grace', and countless sermons supposedly on grace which seemed rather weighted towards condemnation, have all combined to sully the word 'grace' for me. But I find that reframing the central thoughts with the word 'graciousness', helps me to regain the sense of gentle kindness, strong self-giving, and absolute acceptance which is (I think) what grace has always been about. And so for me, a church ought, above all, to be characterised by graciousness.

3. Acknowledging historic and communal wisdom, yet being bound only by the law of love. I don't like the anything goes approach. I think it's important to hear what past generations thought was healthy and appropriate and acceptable. I think it's important to work out principles of living and shared understandings in community. But in the end, something in me rebels any time one of these historical or communal pieces of wisdom is solidified; when they become rules or regulations. In the end I think that flexibility to move within the law of love in any given situation is not just important, it's vital.

4. Hospitality. From welcoming the stranger, to living with the other, to caring for the enemy, hospitality is central to the gospel and to what the Church is called to be.

5. Involving. Church should be all about the encouragement of, use of and experimentation with the gifts of all God's people. Worship should be the same. I am so over the whole 'sitting watching people up the front do stuff' thing.

6. Breaking down the secular/sacred divide. Seeing God in nature, in culture, in others of other faiths and no faiths. A positive view of God's world and the future God is calling it into.

I'm sure there's a bunch more, but I wanted to get these out there.

Institutions

I'm just finishing reading Tony Jones new book, "The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier" (Tony Jones) and it's raising some questions for me. Namely, to what extent can emerging faith communities operate within the institutional church? This is a live issue for me as I'd love to be part of an emerging faith community, but I'm also a part of an institutional church - The Uniting Church in Australia. I'm a minister of the UCA, I'm employed by the UCA (and by the institution itself, not a local congregation), and I have promised to come under the discipline of the UCA.

One thing which gives me comfort is a tradition within the UCA of being a 'movement' rather than a denomination, but there's still a lot of denominational apparatus, let me tell you! Anyway, I'll keep thinking about it and in the next couple of posts I might try to delineate the things I really like about the UCA and why I think the Church would be poorer if there was no UCA. Then I might look at some of the 'emergent' values I hold and then thirdly how these two lists sit somewhat in tension.

Bad Church Signs

Paul is having a thing about bad church signs in his blog.

The worst sign I ever spied (sorry I don't have pics) was one Sue and I saw when we recently drove past the conservative church in which we grew up. It read:

"Do you want your eternity smoking or non-smoking."

Now the thing that really burnt me up was that THEY BELIEVE THAT STUFF!

It's one thing to make a (poor) joke like that if you don't believe in judgement or hell, but for people who actually believe that most other humans will suffer hideous torture for all eternity to make a JOKE about it - that's cold, stone cold.

Reading

I am currently in the middle of "How (Not) to Speak of God" by Peter Rollins and "A Heretic's Guide to Eternity" by Spencer Burke, Barry Taylor (ooh, I do like the way Ecto 3's Amazon Helper makes those links up automatically!) and I must say that I am finding both books stellar! I'd love to get involved in a reading group going through them in some detail.

I've also rediscovered my Sci-fi library, after unpacking a bunch of books that have been in hiding since we went to London (ie 10 years ago), and am halfway through "Refugee (Bio of a Space Tyrant, Vol 1)" by Piers Anthony; after which I'll be tackling books (series) by Harry Harrison, Christopher Stasheff, Ursula Le Guin, E.E. 'Doc' Smith, James White, David Eddings and a ritual re-reading of all my Perry Rhodan and The Destroyer books (over 100 vols in each series!).

My wife worries that she will never see me again...

Osama Jesus and Mary in a Burqa

So there's this art prize for religious artworks and some of the entrants include Mary in a Burqa and a picture of Jesus that morphs into Osama.

Past President of the Uniting Church, the Reverend Professor James Hare, thinks that the artworks are offensive. Both our leading national politicians jumped on the bandwagon to criticise, without of course doing anything like looking at the artworks!

But I must say that I thought they were great! Artwork is meant to make us think, to provoke and to arrest interest, to juxtapose unlikely elements in order to cause people to contemplate. I think both pieces provoke genuine searching about the way in which different religions or groups of people view people like Mary, Jesus or Osama. We are provoked to consider both the similarities and the differences between Jesus and Osama, their lives and ways of achieving goals. We are made to wonder how images of Mary are used to support cultural norms or religious dogmas in Islamic or Christian contexts. We are led to think about the veil and what it represents positively or negatively.

Personally I think it's great that artists like this push us to explore the unexplored boundaries of thought, and I wish that we had politicians who would more often give a reasoned response and less often give a knee-jerk response.

Take the wheel?

Recently I came across a few videos by American Idol winner and Country Singer Carrie Underwood. While personally I enjoy the video for “Before he cheats”, I was interested to note that “Jesus take the wheel” had won a bunch of awards including the Grammy award for Best Country Song and Best Female Country Vocal Performance, and the Gospel Music Association's Best Country Single.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the song is stirring and inspirational or vomit-inducing kitsch (I'm torn between these poles...), the theological question it raised for me is, “Does Jesus want to take my wheel?” Is 'Handing things over to God' either practical or theologically coherent and if so, in what sense do we 'give God control'? Speaking personally I can't recall a time when I felt I truly wasn't in control of my actions, and I'm not sure I'd like it if I did feel that way. What I want for myself is not to have an outside entity take control of my life (don't we call that possession?), but rather to be formed in my personality, values and habits such that the choices I make freely and personally are aligned with the goals and values of God who was in Christ.

What does anyone else think?

The hibernation continues...

...mainly prompted by the amount of emotional energy being taken up by juggling moving houses and jobs, and more importantly my Dad's continued deterioration (after more than 3 months in hospital the doctors are now indicating that it may be unlikely that he will recover) but I did really want to write down the thoughts below somewhere.

I was listening to a few interesting podcasts from emergent uk when I heard a couple of people referring to emerging church in the context of people who are “believing without belonging”. I think the idea being highlighted was people can (and do) have Christian beliefs without needing to be 'joiners', without needing or wanting to commit to weekly attendance or being part of one 'congregation'.

On the other hand, most of the emerging church talk I had previously heard tended to talk about “belonging without (or before) believing”. The idea being that people want to belong and can be invited to join and experience Christian community without being subject to some checklist of beliefs. Once engaged with the community and having imbibed its values they would then be interested and prepared to hear about the beliefs which shaped the community of which they were a part.

So which is true? I think probably both. From the anecdotal evidence of my own non-church-attending friends and acquaintances I would say that many of them believe some things. For instance they may believe that there is a good God. They may believe that love is the central principle of life. They believe that there is more to life than the merely physical and that spirituality is important. They may believe that the life and teaching of Jesus is a view of the divine. But they do not believe that the earth was created in six days, that Jesus was born of a virgin or that there is only one path to God. Above all they do not believe that the church's edicts help them to understand or to live life constructively.

They are desperately seeking belonging. But they don't think they belong in the church. Mainly because they don't believe the things they think they'd have to believe. And because they're more interested in relationships than in institutions. They'll willingly get together with friends on a weekly basis. But they don't want to be told they have to get together once a week on Sunday mornings.

So what do I do about this? Well, it seems to me that I need both to find the commonality with their beliefs and to offer places of belonging. You see, I suspect in the end that neither “believing without belonging” nor “belonging without believing” is good enough. I think humans want to belong with those who believe as they do. (I know I'm desperate to find and hang out with some people who actually believe that St George will one day win another Premiership...)

Or maybe the real problem is with neat theories that parcel us up into one camp or another. Do you believe? Do you belong? I'm not sure if I do or not. Maybe we could just hang out together and wonder...

A question of ethics

Yesterday I was listening to a podcast of The Science Show - one of the many ABC shows I get by podcast and listen to on my fairly frequent long drives. The topic of discussion that piqued my interest was concerning an epidemic of facial tumours within the Tasmanian Devil population. The interviewer was asking a scientist about various methods by which the devil might be saved (a nice and intentional pun by the atheist Robyn Williams). Now the immediate thought that came to my mind was should we save the devil? One of the great ethical questions for humanity, especially as our ability to intervene in natural affairs continues to grow, is whether we should interfere with natural processes. After all, it was probably an extinction of some species which provided the ecological niche into which our own mammal ancestors could move, enabling our own evolution. So should we intervene to 'save' the Devil, not knowing what the unintended consequences might be?

A previous segment had been about the possible future extinction of gorillas and chimps and I had found myself wishing fervently that some way might be found to avoid that outcome. Now I was having second thoughts about whether we should intervene to save the Tasmanian Devil from possible extinction. It left me recognising that there are no clear ethical guidelines (at least not ones I've seen articulated anywhere about this kind of issue.

Should we intervene only to save species we see as cuddly, important or closely related to us?

Should we always intervene to save species (and damn the unintended consequences)?

Should we intervene when it supports a policy of maximum biodiversity?

Should we intervene only when it seems likely that the species in question is in difficulty primarily and directly because of human activity?

Should we try to minimise any human interference with natural processes, and hence any intervention regarding an endangered species?

I think these are important questions for the next decades and centuries.

Enjoying a fantastic read

A couple of months back, I tagged a few people with the Book Meme, including Cheryl Lawrie. Well I don't know if Cheryl ever got to listing her five books, but elsewhere she blogged about a book, “On Religion”, by John Caputo.

Intrigued by Cheryl's reference I bought the book and have been devouring it for the last 2 hours. One third the way through, I am loving it (and God)!

I absolutely recommend this book, and can't wait until I receive the other book I ordered: “The Weakness of God”.

So I've seen it now...

Yesterday I went to see The Da Vinci Code. Mark Berry points to a very negative review by fellow Australian and well known apologist Phil Johnson, but I have to say that my own reaction was quite different as was that of the two mates I went with. We all thought the film was quite enjoyable and the acting was good. It was a thoroughly enjoyable couple of hours and we didn't begrudge the $9.50 it cost.

Phil Johnson rightly points out that none of the film's (or books) central themes are particularly new, but my own question then is, 'Why, given the relative lack of historical backing for these ideas do they still have such enormous traction within the general community?' And my own answer is that there is something pointed to in these books, films etc which has been missing from the 'run-of-the-mill' portrayal of the Christian faith. I'll be interested in exploring what that missing something might be with some of my friends who aren't 'heavy-duty church-goers'.

One thing I found particularly interesting was the way in which the Tom Hanks character (Langdon) is 'softened' in the movie. This was particularly obvious in the scene where Teabing is filling in Sophie on the grail legend. In the book both Langdon and Teabing are singing from the same hymnsheet - almost tag-teaming to destroy Sophie's presuppositions about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity. However in the film version Langdon is seen more as a moderating influence - regularly challenging Teabing's view - bringing up (more traditional) alternatives etc. There was a similar subtle change in the dialogue leading up to meeting Teabing, with Langdon being much more cautious and suspicious about grail 'lore'. I wonder was this change in Langdon's character meant to make him more likeable or the film less offensive to those of Christian sensibilities? For me it actually robbed the film of some of its power.

All in all I thought it was worth seeing and the gorgeous architectural scenes made it a big-screen event in a way which (sorry Mark!) won't be captured by the video.

On my wishlist...

I've always enjoyed the writings of Daniel Dennett. As a philosopher and cognitive scientist I find him challenging and top-notch. The fact that he has a negative approach to religion hasn't bothered me - I figure that if my faith can't stand up to questioning from a good thinker it's not worth having.

So I'm fascinated to actually put my faith 'head-to-head' with Dennett as it were, in his recent book, Breaking the Spell (subtitled 'Religion as a Natural Phenomenon).

I've ordered it today and will blog my thoughts when it arrives.

A previous wishlist book, The Secret Message of Jesus, has arrived. I'm enjoying it so far but am only up to Chapter 1 - more to come later.

Movie magic...

On the fishers, surfers and casters blog, Paul Teusner asks, 'Why should we think about mass media?' In the comments, Stephen posed the challenge,

What would your list of 5-10 books be that would make a good introduction to religion and media?

My comment in response was,

Really given the article, shouldn’t it be 5-10 *movies* which would be illustrative of a good introduction to religion and media…?

And Paul naturally asked me to put my money where my mouth was. :-0

So here is a list of some movies which inform / provide the vocabulary for / become a medium of, my own spirituality. I'm keeping it brief but am happy to enlarge on any of them in comments if someone is interested. Also I found that it was hard to pick specific films, for the reason that movies are so much a part of my life - I've watched hundreds (thousands?). And the movie which speaks to me at one time is clearly a function of what's going on in my life at that point, what the spiritual issues or questions are for me then etc. Nevertheless, here goes:

The Village - What is fear? How does it shape our lives? Our beliefs? How can we continue to be part of a messy, hurtful world? Did the Creator get it wrong?

X-Men (1 or 2) - Alienation seems to be part of life. What makes us human? More interestingly - what prevents us from being fully human?

Dogma - Alanis Morissette as God. Need I say more? No seriously - a playful, quirky God. That speaks to me. The rest of the movie is also an interesting exploration of justice, right and wrong, consequences.

Saved - Ok, so it's not rocket science, but I went to that school (except our principal couldn't do standing somersaults...). If evangelical / conservative faith is so true, why is it so ugly?

Spirited Away - I can't explain this one. I just know it moved me in a way few other things in life have. Maybe its because I lived the first 12 years of my life in Japan. Natsukashii ne... But there's also something I can't put my finger on in the content, that says something about the way the world is.

Wrath of Khan - Yeah, ok, I know I'm sad. Still... I cried when Spock died. Sacrifice and love are at the heart of the universe.

Ok then, there's half a dozen. I'm sure there's more. What about you?