FXFC - 3 - Expositing the Dream (iv) Preaching/Teaching
There is no word in NT Greek that simply means
to preach as we practice that today. The sermon in its current form came out of the Reformation, not out of the Bible.
There are numerous Greek words in Scripture that are translated as 'preach*" in various translations, but all are also translated by other words in other parts of scripture in various versions.
Kerugma = to proclaim
Evangelizo = to bring/show/tell good news
Kerusso = to declare as a herald
Parakleo = to exhort/implore/encourage
None of these words of themselves imply nor require a preacher in a pulpit (or on a stage) speaking for 20/30/40 minutes to a silent listening audience.
The focus in the NT is on the subject of proclamation rather than the mode of proclamation – “preach the good news” / “preach Christ” / etc.
Actually Jesus does not command his disciples to 'preach', rather he commands us to disciple, baptise and
teach (Matt.28:19,20).
Is preaching the best way to feed the hunger that is there for spiritual nourishment, for a message of hope, for a glimpse of the transcendent, for experiences that convey love and integrity, for spiritual understanding that has depth and rigour?
Preaching in the NT was primarily an evangelistic proclamation - for non-believers, not teaching for believers. These two roles need to be divided out again and the best formats for each used according to the local circumstances (audience / culture / tradition / etc).
The sermons of Peter and Paul were addressed to non-believers. They were using the media format of the time – speaking out in the town square – the equivalent of an article in the newspaper or on the web today. This proclamation was done amidst the hurly burly of the ‘world’ not in the sacred silence of a sanctuary.
__________________
The McSermon lite - an easily prepared one-size-fits-all message that can be relatively easily prepared and presented to a wide range of people who's spiritual nutritional needs are not specifically taken into contention. Guaranteed to be consumed within 20 minutes or less. Has enough sustenance in some cases to prevent total withering and death, and enough 'fat' to cause bloating of the pewsitters in others. Comes complete with a fizzy drink and fries on the side (praise music and other 'worship' elements). __________________
Research over the past 50 years has shown that the best method of teaching is not the lecture, but rather the more intimate interactive seminar format. Schools not only differentiate students by their basic level of comprehension, but they also seek to keep class sizes to less than 25 – they know that larger groups than this are less inducive to good learning, and that you cannot successfully teach in one group people who are at vastly different stages of the understanding of the subject/issue. Yet in churches across that land we ‘preach’ to congregations (some numbering in the thousands) whose pew-sitters are at widely differing stages in their spiritual journey.
We need to get back to the Jesus model where he spent most of his time for three years with a small group of (12) disciples, modelling life for them and mentoring them in the truth.
Apologies for non-blogging
Well, it's good to know that there are one or two people who read this site - and who are concerned enough to ask why I haven't blogged this last ten days. Simple answer - been working on other things - like a training programme on "leadership" for our church, materials for our Strategy TaskForce, and a short presentation to our Leadership Retreat for tomorrow night. But the next episode will be up very, very shortly.
In Him
G
"From what you have said though, it appears that if I'd stayed for the evening I'd probably have come away with a different impression."
Having now spoken to the others of my group who did stay for the evening - yes, I did miss something good. As Darren has said, the format was different. My 3 friends all said the best part of the day was the first half hour and the last two and half hours. I'm sorry I missed it.
Gordon
Liquid Day @ NCCC - response to Darren
Thanks, Darren, for your comment to my
posting. I'm glad to hear that the evening was quite different, and am sorry that I didn't 'get that message'.
I do not want to be
critical of the day or suggest that it
totally fell short - except that what I experienced fell short of my personal expectations. And perhaps my colleague had his expectations shaped by my expectations when I suggested to him that he attend. Others with other expectations would no doubt have had quite a different reaction. Perhaps it was all too 'liquid' for me! :-) and perhaps I blogged too soon after the event without enough reflection.
And I really do appreciate the difficulties the organizers found themselves in when registrations fell short of the required base number.
You noted:
"However we were very intentional today about not wanting to it to be a talking head event but rather a learning together/networking and sharing journeys type time."
I think this is a very valid intent - and I liked how Phil said that the speakers were not
the experts, but that
the expertise was in the attendees. However I have seen numerous occassions where such forums have fallen flat - the 'success' depends so heavily on the actual people who are present and the inter-relational dynamics amongst them. For me it didn't work as well as it could have or as well as I would have liked it to have.
From what you have said though, it appears that if I'd stayed for the evening I'd probably have come away with a different impression.
In Him
FXFC - 3 - Expositing the Dream - (iii) Worship
WORSHIP
Biblically ‘worship’ is not the right word for what happens on Sunday morning in our church buildings. Biblical Worship is 24/7, not one hour a week (or even one hour a day if you have a daily time of Biblical reading, prayer and reflection). Biblical Worship is whole of life worship.
I am concerned that many congregations feel that altering or modifying their corporate worship format will make them culturally relevant in a biblical way. We seem to have forgotten the prophet’s advise that what God requires is not sacrifices and ceremonies but a life of compassion, justice and mercy.
I am concerned that many of those writing for and about the emergent church still seem to see the ‘Sunday’ Worship Service (even if held on a Wednesday) as the central pillar of how to be church. While they espouse the need to be missional and to change away from a focus on trying to ‘get people to church’, they still seem to focus on alt.worship as a key element. And this alt.worship is ‘what we do on Sunday’ rather than how we live our life.
I believe scripture teaches that there are three facets to Godly worship - Private Worship; All of Life Worship; and Communal Worship
The Priority of Communal Worship?
Most churches today have ‘corporate (communal) worship’ (what we do in the church building on Sunday) as the primary activity of the local church. A quick look at their ministries, budgets, staffing, etc readily supports this statement. Consequently they are tied to an attractional mode of outreach – trying to get people to come to the Corporate Worship event or to some introductory program (such as 40 Days of Purpose or Alpha) to lead them into this corporate event.
The resultant model of church is overlapping circles representing Worship | Community | Mission
However many people, myself included, consider this inappropriate. The pattern should rather be: Community >> Mission, all within the larger circle of Worship.
Thus George Lings of the Church Army (UK), in his presentation on the CofE’s “Mission-Shaped Church” report, writes: “We face a change of instinct about how church forms and what is most characteristic about it. I would summarise that as a shift from the priority of worship to the priority of community” (italics mine). It is obvious in the context that he uses the word ‘worship’ here for ‘what happens in church on Sunday’, rather that a whole of life attitude that is 24/7.
But ‘the hour on Sunday’ is of no value without the other 167 hours of the week. Rather than an emphasis on ‘communal’ worship, I believe we should give a much greater focus to the other two facets of worship – Private worship (which I hope to touch on more under Spiritual Formation) and ‘All of Life’ Worship which is a 24/7 attitude of mind with resultant impact on action.
All of Life Worship is not just All of OUR Life Worship! It is not just a focus on what we do in out ‘three score years and ten’, but on how we impact our society in that life.
(See also Teaching/Preaching)
Liquid @ NCCC
Just returned home after the Liquid Day at NCCC - must say I was dissappointed.
The first session had input by three people, - Stephen Said (neurotribe.net) , Leighton Tebay (the heretic.com) and Marke Syares (Forge) give a short 3 point intro each on Justice, Spirituality and Culture respectively. The points they made were very good, but unfortunately they were not given the opportunity to open them up (less than 10 minutes for an intro and three points!).
Stephen: JUSTICE
1. The False seperation of Private & Social Transformation
2. From Protest to alternatives
- many people know and can articulate) what they are against, but few know (or can articulate) what they are for.
3. True Vocational Options
- the potential role of transformational businesses ( a matter I want to discuss further with Stephen)
Leighton: SPIRITUALITY
1. From Event to Engagement
- participation is more important than presentation
2. From Formula to Formation
- not a 5 minute marriage courtship, but a slow development of a long term relationship
3. Embrasing the Mystery
- not everything is knowable, nor should we try to explain everything.
Mark: CULTURE
1. Acknowledge (and name) Implicit Religion
- Religion of 'Hyper-reality' - marketers' use of peace / Family / Community/ etc - but its failing is that it cannot deliver heaven on earth
2. Liquidity
- Society is fluid, not just changing cultures, but people move jobs, change communities, move to different countries
3. D.I.Y - in Renovation / making home movies / file-sharing / etc
- they will not need permission to DIY 'church'.
After a bit of discussion almost all taken up on the theme of individualism, we then broke into 5 groups to share thoughts and ideas on specific topics that the whole group had nominated during Afternoon tea.
This is where I feel things fell in a hole. There were no prepared moderators and thus our group, instead of fine-tuning the question, opened it up so widely you could have discussed it for months before you began to achieve anything. This was not just my view. I encourage four members of our Church Strategy team to attend, and the one (who attended a different group) whom I asked how things went after the second session said in a charitable voice: "I'd only give that an average, Gordon".
The plan for the evening was for more of the afternoon, so I came home.
What would I have done differnetly? I have let the three initial speakers each have ten minutes to expound each of their three points, and then had the discussion groups further enquire into and disuss the issues and questions that had been raised. The initial input was too short and thus didn't have the depth it needed.
Of course, This is one person's opinion, and I may have had the wrong end of the stick before I attended, but... I did meet Stephen Said and Leighton Tebay and a couple of others which was good.
A response to Garth ref: open and transparent community vis-a-vis intimacy
Hi Garth
"
Community does not necessarily mean intimacy or friendship" - Dave Andrews
Dave is always good for a thought provoking discussion. And I think he's right. To be a community of faith means we must not in any way look like, act like, or think like a closed community. By 'openness and transparency' I mean we must avoid hidden agendas, non-accepting language and actions, etc - a community the reveals the integrity of Christ himself. Now that's a HUGE ask - but I believe it is a *must* ask.
How can I be in a real open and transparent relationship with someone unless they can be themselves, especially when that means holding to things that are different to what we might hold to? How can they see the Hope embodied in the Kingdom unless our lives, individual and communal, are not open and transparent?
Unfortunately most 'church' communities are unnecessarily closed to some degree or other. Small groups tend to be even more closed, relying either on spiritual intimacy or friendship to be a boundary that contains them.
Note that Dave does not say 'cannot mean ...' nor 'should not mean ...' but 'does not necessarily mean...". While intimacy and friendship should not be boundaries to our communities, the open hand of friendship is a welcome door to those considering testing the waters of a given community.
I think we also need to realize that today Community comes before Belief, Bible or Worship in most people's experience. I found George Hunter's "The Celtic Way of Evangelism" and parts of Rick Richardson's "Evangelism Outside the Box" particularly stimulating in this arena (altho I have some major 'arguements' with Richardson's thesis in the latter part of his book).
I think a side consequence of this mode of thought is the way we evengelicals have 'used' 'friendships' as a fulcrum for evangelism. "Make friends and bring them to church!" But is that real friendship if it is 'friendship with an intent'? But that should be another theme for another time!!!
Kyle, (Reflections of Christ) gives
a great example of how connected we can be through mediated interactions:
"I met Jen Lemen today. I've been lurking around her blog for years (it seems like at least). Great author, wonderful thinker. She was kind enough to participate in an e-interview I did with AKMA in a directed reading last semester - and she had some incredible thoughts.
"Meeting Jen was awesome. I feel as if I know her, at least a little, from everything I've read and from our emails back and forth. So the handshakes and face-to-face was wonderful. (She sounds and looks a little like our very good friend Aunt Patty in Colorado Springs - smile)
"But on the way out of the luncheon, she was at the door offering a blessing. She took my hand, and offered a very priestly blessing over me, my journey and God's work in my life. I was surprised at how deeply touched and moved I was. There was an intimacy present I hadn't expect."
BTW - My apologies to Kyle for adding an 'i' into his name (and thus giving him a sex change!).
Thanks for your comment, Kyle
While I agree that un-mediated interactions enable better 'community' than mediated ones, I suppose what I was trying to counter is a perspective that community can *only* be done in face-to-face and person-to-person contact. And some conservative christians go as far as to say mediated community is contrary to scripture. As I said in an earlier post, I believe our society (at least in Oz) is focussing less on geographical neighbourhood than on network neighbourhood and we have to take that on board seriously.
I have come across few 'churches' who are. In my last job I spent 50% of my time away from home travelling the world. For those 6 years I only recall extremely rare occassions that anyone from our 'church' contacted me just to ask how I was doing, and to 'fellowship' with me. I would suggest that, for instance, for any church active within a community that involves middle to senior executives this kind of interaction is a must.
Of course it also means we should be utilizing the technology more effectively for community interaction. I see a real potential here for blogs, but for SMS, for better websites, etc.
FXFC - 3 – Expositing the Dream… (ii)
COMMUNITY
As a general rule, being a Christ-follower requires living in relationships with others – both fellow Christ-followers and non-Christ-followers. A true Christ-follower has to seek to make an impact on the world in which they live – this is the fundamental basis of Christ’s Great Commission – and this cannot be done in isolation from that world. Yes, there have been aesthetics and hermits who have lived devout lives which have impacted the world, but they are the exception rather than the rule. And a true Christ-follower needs the support and encouragement of other like-minded pilgrims as each faces the trials and challenges of living a Christ-like life in a Christ-less world.
As Jim Peterson in “Lifestyle Evangelism” points out: “Look through the Epistles and observe how much of the content has to do with Christians relating to one another. We are told to be devoted to one another, to serve one another, to bear with one another in love, to forgive each other …” and climaxes with John’s words “… we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.”
But does the Bible mandate face-to-face community as the absolutely normative way of being community? I don’t believe so. While Paul was on his missionary journeys he still felt and acted as if he were very much part of the community in the various places where he had planted faith communities.
This begs the question as to what forms community. I would suggest four elements:
- Commonality of focus and purpose - accountability
- Commitment / Interdependence - trust
- Care – safe and compassionate
- Communication & Contact – openness & transparency
In the First Century world this was normally achieved in a small geographical area. Distances (small by today’s standards) were vast to the people of that era. But despite this a sense of community could still be maintained regardless of the distances. Paul’s letters make it obvious that he still felt himself to be part of the community of the churches that he had established in Asia Minor despite his geographical dis-location from them. Today’s communication and transportation technologies make even trans-global communities a reality. As the “Missional Church Report” points out, geographical territory is no longer a key base of commonality.
I would suggest that, as has been shown in the way technology has impacted the sense of community amongst scattered missionaries in places like Japan or North Thailand (to name two areas that I am particularly conversant with), new forms of communication and transportation technology have made network community feasible as a viable alternative (not replacement) to face-to-face community. And even in places where face-to-face community is readily feasible, the new technologies supplement face-to-face to build a network into a more cohesive and yet more elastic community than was previous possible.
Nest: WORSHIP
FXFC - 3 – Expositing the Dream… (i)
The word ‘church’ poses an immediate problem. Do we mean the building on the corner or the universal body of Christ. Do we mean the people who meet in a specific location (usually) on a Sunday morning, or the institution with its management tree, administrative functions and business meetings, or do we mean the denominational super-structure.
What is CHURCH?
[See “The Emerging Church” by Dan Kimball – pp91ff – from which I have made these notes.]
1. Nowhere in the NT does it say they “went to church”. We can’t go to church because we (the gathered missional community of faith) are the church
2. The meaning of the word: In the NT the Gk word for church is ‘ekklesia’ which means ‘assembly’ and was used in a somewhat political sense to refer to meetings that had a specific purpose. It was used of non-religious gatherings (Acts 19:32, 41) as well as gatherings of the followers of Jesus as they met in people’s homes (Rom.16:5; 1 Cor.16:19). The church was ‘gathered’ (Acts 14:27), but people never met at church.
The term is used in the singular to describe several churches in a region (Acts 9:31) but also to describe a church which is comprised of believers everywhere on earth. We are part of a universal and a local church.
3. Missionality of Church. In Matt.28:19 Jesus instructs his followers to “Go and make disciples…” In Acts 1:8 his final point to his disciples was “… you shall be my witnesses …”. “It appears that He regarded evangelism as the very reason for their being” (Millard Erikson). (see later comments)
4. Church unintentionally redefined. (see: The Missional Church edited by Darrell Guder) ‘The reformers, in their effort to raise the authority of the Bible and ensure sound doctrine, defined the marks of the true church: a place where the gospel is rightly preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and church discipline exercised. However, over time these marks narrowed the definition of church itself as a “place where” idea instead of a “people who are” reality.’ Church became defined as “a place where certain things happen”.’
5. Church as a Vendor of Services
In our desire to attract people to our churches, have we subtly taught that church is where you come to learn about how God can fix your problems? Where you come to have others feed your children about God for you? Where you come for your weekly feeding in the Word of God? Where you come to experience high quality worship music?
6. Consumer Christians
“We’re looking for a church that meets our needs!” The phenomenon of church shopping has shaped the contemporary church.
We have moved from being a community that goes out into the world to holistically help the lost and the broken to an institution that tries to get people to come to it so that their specific needs (psychological, material, relational and/or spiritual needs) can be met.
Our church needs to be re-birthed from the inside out – to redefine itself in its inner core as the “community of faith” – a network of people who have put themselves under the Lordship of Christ and who are moving out and reaching out on mission for the Kingdom.
The Bible does not mandate the ‘form’ of the church but does define the membership of the ‘Church’. It mandates the purpose of Church and church – to be a community that is the catalyst bringing the Kingdom of God to the world in transforming power: transforming people and transforming society and bringing them under the rule of the King of Kings.
While not mandating any specific form, Scripture does clearly points to two key characteristics of Church – Community and Worship, and has things to say about some other aspects of being church. I intend looking at these two concepts next.
FXFC - 2 - I have a dream…
These are some 'Theses' (to use Luther's word) that I believe have merit and that shape the paradigm of my dream for local expressions of faith communities (aka 'church'). Over coming blogs I will exegete something of what I mean by some of the concepts they contain. Both now and as I elaborate, your comments are most welcome. G.
I have a dream...
§ Of a church that really is a faith community (FC) – focused on being a community of followers of Jesus (and thus with only a secondary focus on buildings, programs, etc, and then only those that serve the primary focii), so immersed in its world that the 24/7 worship of its members influences and in time transforms the world, bring it under the Kingdom of God.
§ Of an FC that follows the path of the ‘men of Issachar’ who “understood the times and knew what Israel ought to do” (1 Chron.12:32).
§ Of an FC that is willing to take extreme risks in following the discerned Will of God.
§ Of an FC whose members spend time each w’end intercoursing with ‘neighbours’ both near and far by whatever means is appropriate (the w’end being the time when most of our society is free of the daily constraints of the working week timetable).
§ Of an FC whose members meet weekly in sub-groups to learn about the faith and its practical application in daily life, and to support others in that sub-group in their application of discovered truths.
§ Of an FC whose members encourage and support each other through the use of SMS, email and phone links, etc.
§ Of an FC that engages in a regular open communal worship event that reflects the awe, majesty and mystery of our God.
§ Of an FC that recognises that the 24/7 Life worship of each member is nourished and energised by both Private and Communal Worship, and acts on this.
§ Of an FC that recognises that the best way to disciple is by dialoguing and mentoring younger disciples with more mature disciples.
§ Of an FC that realises that the best way to teach is though interactive dialogue and acts accordingly.
§ Of an FC that sees its members as trying to be Christ incarnate to those whose lives are touched in their normal daily activities.
§ Of an FC that understands and applies the importance of the Kairos moments in individual lives.
§ Of an FC that makes available to it members appropriate tools and resources for use in bringing people under the fringes of the FC so that they can experience in one way or other the ministry of God’s people. Such items would include a FC card with a tag message and contact details, including the web URL, as well as informational cards for the FC’s specific service ministries.
§ Of an FC which has a significant web-presence including blogs (especially by its leading members).
§ Of an FC whose leading members are encouragers, teachers and enablers.
§ Of an FC that co-ordinates events (seminars, rallies, parties, etc) that inform, challenge and celebrate matters and events of interest to the society in which they are embedded.
§ Of a FC that out-sources its administration to a professional admin centre that serves a number of faith communities with administrative excellence. This FC has no paid ‘ad-ministry’ staff, but may well have paid staff in some of its specific centres of service (eg social service centre, coffee shop, gallery, medical centre, legal centre, etc.)
There are any number of ways these principles can be put into practice, but I suggest that they require a significant sift in mind-set for most current ‘church’ members.
Thanks for your welcome
Thanks to those who have welcomed me into the Blogosphere - I look forward to interaction over time. And I will try to keep most of my posts down in size. :-)
FXFC - 1 - Emergent Culture
1 - The Emergent Cultural
Many people have written thousands of words on the cultural changes that have effected our western society in the last 25 years. Again, it may be semantics, but I am uncomfortably talking of floods, tidal waves or tsunamis of change – especially in the light of Boxing Day 2004. These imply sudden, sweeping - and usually devastating – changes. However what we have experienced has been insidious incremental change (although at a relatively rapid rate when looked at in the history of social change). We have been more like the frog in the kettle (to use George Barna’s book title) sitting on a gas flame set at ‘high’.
Another word often used in this examination is “post-“. Again, it may be just a quibble, but I would prefer to look ahead more rather than look back so much.
My other concern with much that has been written about cultural change is the overwhelming focus that has been put on the philosophical change (post-modernism) without a balancing examination of the other major changes concurrently emerging. I firmly believe that, while the philosophical change is very important, it has only had the impact because of its synergy with the other changes. Each have supported and strengthened the other.
Commentators have classed these changes in many ways – each seems to have their own list – so here is mine (using 4 of Gerard Kelly’ 5 posts).
Emergent New Technologies – that have torn apart the two hundred year old mechanical machine age and overwhelmed it with new information processing and digital technology. This has had dramatic impact on not just the work-place and the entertainment industry, but even the very way we communicate.
An emergent new underlying Philosophy - that is bursting out of the foundational framework of modernism which shaped our society for over 400 years. The sureness of the Enlightenment and of humanity’s potential to know and control all is being displaced by a philosophy of ambiguity, diversity and uncertainty. “My Truth” is just as valid as “Your Truth”. Power and authority are mistrusted – authentic experience is what counts.
This new philosophy has led to a new morality where anything goes, ethical is what you can get away with.
An emerging Globalized Economy – where many corporations have an international economic impact that swamps that of most nation states, and where market economics take precedent over national interests. The old order of political empires has given way to the empires of McWorld. (A challenging film & book on this topic is “The Corporation”).
Emerging Spiritual Diversity – that has shifted from an ‘established’ religion to a plurality of individualised, experiential faith expressions. Popular spirituality has shifted from orthodoxy to self-fulfilment.
The rapid transition of change itself. Trends of the sort that took many years to seep through society now permeate it in a time-span measured by months. While businesses were advised to develop 5-10 year plans they now develop 1-2 year plans – anything longer than that will be overtaken by changes of one kind or another.
As a result of these changes the cultural landscape has dramatically altered.
From Homogenous to Fragmented
A quick look at the ABS Statistics tells us that the Australia of the ‘Oughties’ is vastly different from that of the ‘Fifties’ or even the ‘Seventies’. Our society is both more multi-ethnic and increasingly polarized economically between the haves and have-nots. The stereotypical white classless Aussie battler no longer exists. New trends in immigration, higher levels of long-term unemployment (and casual part-time work), increased mobility, changes to family life patterns, later-life child-bearing, and the rise of the single parent household, all mark a new social and cultural landscape.
From Literate to Visi-Aural
The rise firstly of TV , more lately of the Internet, and now the prevelance of mobile video-phones have led to a swing away from a society that is focused on ‘words’ to one that is focused on sounds and sights. This is not new – in many ways it is a return to the culture prior to the Renaissance – the world of the Middle Ages was replete with visi-aural communication: mystery plays, stained glass windows, heraldic devices and signs of all sorts, etc. In an unpublished paper I have argued that throughout history there has been a number of cycles from visi-aural to literate to visi-aural and back again.
From Neighbours to Networks
The dominance of territory to confer identifying relationships is being replaced by networks. Who we know is more significant than where we live. Our geographical neighbours are quite likely to be complete strangers to us – rather we choose how and with whom to connect. Friends, work colleagues, fellow hobbyists are our new key connects. Home is often only a place to retreat into and to sleep at – more people are regularly living out and eating out.
From Production to Consumption
In the middle of the 20th Century, the majority of people were seen as ‘workers’ – now they are seen as ‘consumers’. Marketing, amongst other forces, has brought about an increased emphasis on the individual, prioritising personal choice and the attainment of pleasure as an inalienable right. Advertisers and producers ensure that this supposed right is never quite attained; producing relentless advertising to ensure the demand is insatiable. (Australian Retailers are expecting Christmas 2004 to net them over AU$34 billion – an average spend of over $1750 for every man, woman and child in the land!)
From Christendom to the Fringe
Christian culture and values are no longer normative. The number of Aussies claiming to be ‘Christian’ has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years as the new individuality meant that it was more than just OK to call oneself a non-Christian. This had two determining causes – one was a deep historical antagonism in the Aussie psyche to anything that was linked with authoritarian control, the other a new multi-cultural tolerance that challenged the very ‘truth’ foundation of Christianity.
The basic underlying culture regarding religion in Australia differs from the UK or the US. In the UK there has been a long tradition of the church’s role (together with the pub!) as the centre of neighbourhood community. In the US the early settlers were seekers of freedom to observe their faith in ways they saw as appropriate, and religion has always been close to the heart of the national culture. Australia, however, was founded as a penal colony and as such had an inbred distrust of anything that was connected with authority and that included the church.
Christianity’s claim to be the truth is perceived as being ludicrous. In multi-ethnic Australia the ‘fear’ of upsetting those of non-Christian ethnic backgrounds has mean the neutering of major Christian festivities for fear of appearing ‘non-politically correct’ or, even worse, subject to a racial vilification law-suit. Thus the Melbourne City Council did not promote a ‘Christmas Celebration’ but a ‘Celebrate Melbourne’ theme leading up to Dec 25th 2004.
Some Implications for Faith Communities:
§
The fragmentation of society requires a new emphasis on the Gospel of Reconciliation. The Kingdom message is not just that we can have a newly reconciled relationship with God, but that we can have a relationship of communal love with all people, regardless of their ethnicity, status, etc., - all are people loved by God, and our faith community must reflect anew Paul’s challenge of ‘neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, … but all one in Christ Jesus.
§
The changed communications modality requires a shift from our current emphasis on the literate word. Rather we should seek to more effectively utilize visual and aural images that conjure up emotive metaphors for spiritual truth. Experiencing something is more important to most people today that the knowledge of that same thing. Change attention span also challenges us to reconsider the way we communicate – where didactic messages are used they should be short and pithy; dialogue is the preferred way to transmit knowledge.
§
The networking of social relationships means that geographical place is of much less importance than previously. People will happily drive 20-30 minutes or more to get to an event that matters to them. (We used to drive Peter to Altona and even Geelong for his hockey games!)
§
The consumptive society has both positive and negative implications. Negative ones include the focus on meeting individuals felt needs, resulting in a church that becomes a ‘service vendor’ rather than a community. It also results in believers going ‘church shopping’ rather than seeking God’s will regarding the faith community they should commit to. On the positive side, most people are open to new ideas and new experiences in a way they previously weren’t, as long as they do not feel pressured by slick salesmanship but are rather drawn in by early experienceers in their peer group.
§
Christianity on the Fringe means that we have to work to earn trust and respect from members of society. It means that demonstration of the faith in action (24/7 incarnation) is much more important than proclamation. We have to immerse ourselves in the society we want to transform, demonstrating in daily life the ‘benefits’ of kingdom living and then be ready to ‘give the reason for our hope’.
FXFC - Intro
A FRESH EXPRESSION FOR A FAITH COMMUNITY
An Immersive Church for an Emergent Culture
By Way of Introduction
My name is Gordon Gray, and for the last thirty years or more I have been involved in helping Churches and Christian Non-Profits think through ways of being more effective in reaching out to the wider world. I studied theology at Ridley College, an Anglican Theological College here in Melbourne, Australia. Currently I worship at Murrumbeena Baptist Church (MBC) in SE Melbourne. Over the years I have been involved in ‘christian marketing’ activities, assisted in Church Plants, run alternative worship services, and visited churches in many parts of the world. Recently I have immersed myself in books and blogs concerning the ‘Emerging’ or ‘Missional’ Church.
Please note that all I say here is the expression of one person’s particular viewpoint – albeit heavily fed by writers within and without the various expressions of the Christian Faith.
Please also take on board that I am not attempting a prescription for the Church at large – rather I am exploring ‘a’ fresh expression to living out the Christian faith. I value the term that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has been quoted as using in this regard -- “a mixed economy” – that there are many ways of being Church, new and old – there is no one way. One impetus for writing this at this time is that I am facilitating a Strategy TaskForce for MBC – seeking a direction for our church as we move towards 2020.
Another foundational perspective is that I am looking at things from a Western point of view (with a definite Aussie twist) and that I fully understand that things are very different in various parts of the world – vastly different in many parts of Africa and Asia – but also that there are significant differences between Australia, Canada, NZ, UK and US.
The overall shape of this series of ‘Probes’ will (I think) follow the following framework:
The Cultural Shifts
I have a Dream…
Exegeting the Dream
A Possible direction to finding an appropriate Fresh Expressions
I have subtitled this document “An Immersive Church for an Emergent Culture”. In this I am intentionally using words in a different way than the latest norm. “Emergent” is used extensively to describe the latest incarnation of church (see “A Generous Orthodoxy” by Brian McLaren, pp.275-7, for the origins of the use of this word in this way). However I often feel that the emergent church is focussed on where it has come from, rather than what it is there to do. Thus the use of the word 'emergent' = coming to the surface / coming into prominence / being discovered (see “The Emerging Church” by Dan Kimball p13). I feel this is not the most appropriate term for the new faith expression, but that it is an appropriate term for the changed culture in which we have to operate (more of that later).
Another word often used to describe the latest incarnation of church is “Missional”. This has the advantage of having an outward focus, but also carries with it overtones of ‘promotion’ and ‘hard-sell’ and fails to convey anything of the relational aspect that I feel is so important.
Consequently I would prefer to use the word "immersive" for the church - focussing on being in the world but not of it. At times it will be so immersed it may not even be seen, but it will still be there below the surface as a clear identify and catalyst for change.
I hope this concept will become clearer as you read through this document. Please note that it is very much a ‘work in progress’ to be discussed – it is not a formal proposal.
Gordon
