This seminar addressed an increasingly important issue within mission and one which I know relatively little about. The speaker started with a lot of helpful background information; he defined a slum (a community lacking in infrastructure and appropriate and affordable housing), presented the relevance of ministry in slums (1/6 of the total population of the planet currently lives in slums), and went on to describe a lot of the demographics of slums and how quickly the earth moved from being largely composed of rural populations to urban ones. After defining the challenge that urban communities present to Christian mission, he then went on to explain strategies that are being used and have been effectively used to respond to this challenge, outlining four key strategies (changing world views, seeking the Shalom of the city, restoring broken relationships, and aiming for reproducibility).
I found the meat of the presentation to be the second half, in which he discussed ways that Christians and organizations can respond to urban poverty. Many times presenters can overwhelm their audience with facts and figures that lead to a feeling of hopelessness since no method of response is presented as well. Because of this, I really appreciated that the speaker focused a good half of his presentation on how we can respond to urban poverty. Granted, it mostly focused on strategies that NGOs can employ rather than on individuals, but it was important for him to emphasize that there ARE ways to address these issues and several of these strategies can be effective on the individual level (most notably the emphasis on restoring relationships). I disagreed with his assessment of needing to find solutions that are reproducible in other contexts. While I agree that this would be ideal, I am unconvinced that what works in one particular context can be successful in another. I think there are too many variables that change between cultural contexts and economic situations to allow for that. I think that the search for reproducibility is somewhat of a quest for the Holy Grail, ultimately doomed to fail. I also think it can easily become a form of colonialism, driven by Western ideas of efficiency and success.
His discussion of the need for reproducibility, however, has made me more open to the idea than before, since there is also an urgency in helping to overcome poverty. Simply because I believe it probably cannot be done does not mean that it actually cannot or is not worthy of pursuit. If there is a way to develop successful, reproducible programs for addressing urban poverty, we need to find it. As future missionary to Muslim contexts, it is important that I become aware of these developments as well, since many of the megacities and slums of the world are located in heavily Islamic countries, from Indonesia and the Philippines to Bangladesh and Egypt. Wherever I end up in the Muslim world, I will no doubt be near urban poverty and I will need to know how to engage with Muslims in that context.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Urbana Interaction Paper: Muslim Followers of Jesus
This seminar was largely addressing the Insider Movement that is occurring in many Islamic contexts. In short, the Insider Movement is the movement of many Muslims to become Jesus followers while still remaining culturally Muslim. These Muslims have both accepted Jesus as saviour and have found a way to continue to be legally and culturally Muslim. Rather than presenting a lot of fact or figures on the movement, the presenters instead gave a background as to why it can be so important to remain culturally Muslim, used dramas as demonstrations as to how this process works, and explained what keeps this movement biblical.
This movement stretches me by making me reassess what it means to be a Christian, to be a Muslim, and to be a follower of Christ, as well as what is essential to being saved. It makes me ask questions which I cannot readily answer and am still processing. These questions are regarding things like whether one must reject the Quran, whether rejection of the name “Christian” means rejection of salvation, and whether the Trinity is an essential doctrine to salvation (this particular question was not addressed by them, but comes out of my experience with a Muslim friend). My inclination is to answer these questions in the negative, but it is definitely spiritually stretching. My inclination is affirmed by the distinctly biblical qualities of the movement: rejection of certain Islamic beliefs about Jesus (that He didn’t actually die on the cross, that He cannot save, that salvation is through works, and that the Bible has been corrupted), reinterpretation of the purposes of prayer and fasting, and diminishing the roles of Muhammad and the Quran compared to Jesus and the Bible. Despite my questions, I am really excited about this movement and the possibilities it has for bring Muslims to Christ.
This was one of my favourite seminars at Urbana because I know comparably very little about the Insider Movement, though I had heard of it before, and will most likely be working with these communities a great deal in my future ministry. Ultimately, I think, it is not up to me to be able to decide whether or not the Insider Movement is a “Christian” movement, but it is up to God who is able to break down all imaginable boundaries. My job is to simply help others encounter and experience Jesus so that they can be drawn closer to Him.
This movement stretches me by making me reassess what it means to be a Christian, to be a Muslim, and to be a follower of Christ, as well as what is essential to being saved. It makes me ask questions which I cannot readily answer and am still processing. These questions are regarding things like whether one must reject the Quran, whether rejection of the name “Christian” means rejection of salvation, and whether the Trinity is an essential doctrine to salvation (this particular question was not addressed by them, but comes out of my experience with a Muslim friend). My inclination is to answer these questions in the negative, but it is definitely spiritually stretching. My inclination is affirmed by the distinctly biblical qualities of the movement: rejection of certain Islamic beliefs about Jesus (that He didn’t actually die on the cross, that He cannot save, that salvation is through works, and that the Bible has been corrupted), reinterpretation of the purposes of prayer and fasting, and diminishing the roles of Muhammad and the Quran compared to Jesus and the Bible. Despite my questions, I am really excited about this movement and the possibilities it has for bring Muslims to Christ.
This was one of my favourite seminars at Urbana because I know comparably very little about the Insider Movement, though I had heard of it before, and will most likely be working with these communities a great deal in my future ministry. Ultimately, I think, it is not up to me to be able to decide whether or not the Insider Movement is a “Christian” movement, but it is up to God who is able to break down all imaginable boundaries. My job is to simply help others encounter and experience Jesus so that they can be drawn closer to Him.
Urbana Interaction Paper: Intro to Islam
The “Intro to Islam” seminar at Urbana was taught by Fouad Masri, the founder of an organization called The Crescent Project, which seeks to help North American Christians reach out to Muslims in love. The main point of his seminar was to provide a basic overview of Islamic history, beliefs, and practices, as well as to point out some similarities and differences with the Christian faith. He structured his talk accordingly, beginning with the life of Muhammad and continuing through into basic Quranic interpretation and Islamic practices, such as the five pillars of Islam.
Coming from Fuller’s Islamic Studies emphasis, very little of what Masri presented was new to me and most of his presentation consisted of relating facts rather than methods of evangelism. There were a few points at which he did discuss methods of interaction. In my experience within evangelical circles, I have found that a good deal of Christian interaction with the Islamic faith consists of denigrating its beliefs and especially Muhammad. I have found these tactics to be largely alienating and counterproductive. Masri, however, made a point that Christians need to emphasize the good things that Muhammad accomplished, which I really appreciated. At other times, Masri seemed to set up false dichotomies in his polemics which I believe to originate in slightly different understandings rather than inherent differences (for example, three of the 99 Names of God – the source of death, the schemer, and the God of vengeance - that Muslims acknowledge would be rejected out-of-hand by most Christians, when I think that the fundamental beliefs those names come out of are probably shared, simply extended in different ways).
Despite the lack of new information, it was interesting to hear the way in which the information was presented, since both Fouad Masri and my professor Martin Accad grew up in Arab Christian families in Beirut, Lebanon, yet have different approaches to interacting with Muslims. Masri’s approach is much more polemical, almost abrasively so, than Accad’s. This is probably due more to personality differences, however, it was interesting. Personally, I prefer the dialogue emphasized by Accad over polemics and apologetics, but both can be effective and both have their place. In my own experience, most Christians do not know enough about either Islam or their own faith to effectively do polemics, and so should be encouraged to engage in relational ministry over polemics until they are capable of doing so. This is, indeed, a large part of what Masri was doing in his talk, both empowering ordinary Christians to engage in relational ministry while whetting their appetite to learn more about Islam. I found it to be a helpful model for what I will probably be doing as a missionary to Muslims during furlough years.
Coming from Fuller’s Islamic Studies emphasis, very little of what Masri presented was new to me and most of his presentation consisted of relating facts rather than methods of evangelism. There were a few points at which he did discuss methods of interaction. In my experience within evangelical circles, I have found that a good deal of Christian interaction with the Islamic faith consists of denigrating its beliefs and especially Muhammad. I have found these tactics to be largely alienating and counterproductive. Masri, however, made a point that Christians need to emphasize the good things that Muhammad accomplished, which I really appreciated. At other times, Masri seemed to set up false dichotomies in his polemics which I believe to originate in slightly different understandings rather than inherent differences (for example, three of the 99 Names of God – the source of death, the schemer, and the God of vengeance - that Muslims acknowledge would be rejected out-of-hand by most Christians, when I think that the fundamental beliefs those names come out of are probably shared, simply extended in different ways).
Despite the lack of new information, it was interesting to hear the way in which the information was presented, since both Fouad Masri and my professor Martin Accad grew up in Arab Christian families in Beirut, Lebanon, yet have different approaches to interacting with Muslims. Masri’s approach is much more polemical, almost abrasively so, than Accad’s. This is probably due more to personality differences, however, it was interesting. Personally, I prefer the dialogue emphasized by Accad over polemics and apologetics, but both can be effective and both have their place. In my own experience, most Christians do not know enough about either Islam or their own faith to effectively do polemics, and so should be encouraged to engage in relational ministry over polemics until they are capable of doing so. This is, indeed, a large part of what Masri was doing in his talk, both empowering ordinary Christians to engage in relational ministry while whetting their appetite to learn more about Islam. I found it to be a helpful model for what I will probably be doing as a missionary to Muslims during furlough years.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Disciples of All Nations: Pillars of World Christianity by Lamin Sanneh
Lamin Sanneh was born in Gambia and later immigrated to the United States. Educated on four continents, he is currently Professor of History and World Christianity at Yale University, where he also heads the Council on African Studies. He is an editor-at-large of The Christian Century, an ecumenical magazine, is a contributing editor of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research and co-editor of the forthcoming The Changing Face of Christianity. He also wrote Faith and Power: Christianity and Islam in “Secular” Britain with Lesslie Newbigin and Jenny Taylor.
Sanneh’s overarching assertion with Disciples of All Nations is that Christianity is an interpreted religion whose message must be translated rather than transmitted between cultures in order to truly take root in the hearts of the people. He demonstrates this by tracing the progression of Christianity through history, pointing out the times when Christian mission has been successful and when it has failed. Sanneh avers that the difference between the two lies in the attempt to translate the Christian message and Scriptures into the heart language, and therefore the cultural worldview, of those to whom the missionary comes.
Sanneh begins his argument by looking at the book of Acts in the New Testament, comparing the early Church’s expectations of Jewish Christians with the expectations of Gentile Christians. He describes how Greek Christians were empowered to practice Christianity in their own, different way rather than having to practice it exactly like the Jewish Christians and he attributes this empowerment to the inclusive actions of the early Church combined with Paul’s ability to translate the core message of Christianity from the Jewish culture to the Greek culture. It seems to me that this is where the original founders of Seventh Day Adventism went wrong. They were trying to transmit the exact practices of early Jewish Christians into their culture rather than translating them. But it also seems to me that Seventh Day Adventism has become its own culture, in a way, which mirrors Jewish culture to a large extent, and so it would not make sense, from a cultural standpoint, for SDAs to reject their practices now without having to also reject their native culture in some way.
Sanneh continues with a discussion of the Church, and then Christendom, up into the Middle Ages, particularly stopping to focus on the spread of Christianity in the British Isles and Iceland. He expresses how the Church Fathers had been “pagan for a purpose (42),” that is, they had deliberately used pagan holidays, symbolism and ideas in order to help them translate the message of Christianity into a form that was culturally understandable to those they were trying to reach. He then begins pointing out areas in which early Christianity did not survive as well, most notable in Northern Africa, asserting that in many of these places, the form of Christianity had been transmitted but that the Scriptures and message had not been translated into the heart language of the people. Thus, with the coming of Islam, thousands of Christians converted. Christianity is, then, dependent not upon practicing the exact right liturgy or conduct (as in legalism), but upon the heart’s understanding of Jesus’ love, which missionaries would do well to remember today.
Jumping forward to the era of colonial expansion, Sanneh further demonstrates his idea of cultural translation through the histories of Latin America and Africa. He shows that there really was no real indigenous attraction to Christianity, the religion of their oppressors, until it was translated into the indigenous culture (via the vision of the Blessed Virgin, Our Lady of Guadalupe). He again demonstrates this aversion to mission due to its attachment to colonization (and thus, transmission of simply the form of Christianity) in Africa with the coming of Catholicism via the Portuguese. However, in this case, the expression of Catholicism eventually died out because no indigenous translation occurred. It was somewhat surprising to me, however, to hear that certain African Catholics of this time chose to be martyred alongside their Portuguese rulers rather than deny their faith in the face of Muslim conquest, a reminder of the prevenient grace of God (in which God is already at work before, despite and through us).
The eventual actualization of African Christianity is then discussed through the use of two opposing models: that of David Livingstone (who advocated for the indigenous people), and that of Cecil Rhodes (founder of the highly discriminatory nation of Rhodesia). While Livingstone lifted the Africans up, Rhodes subjugated them. It was Livingstone that truly made an impact, valuing the Africans enough to take the time to attempt to translate the actual message of the gospel to them in their own culture rather than simply forcing them to practice the shape of Christianity. While it can also be argued in the two cases of Latin America and Africa that Christianity did not spread through the indigenous cultures while it was forced upon them by their colonial rulers, I think Sanneh is correct in his argument concerning linguistic and cultural translation because translation was the catalyst for Christianity when it DID spread naturally into the indigenous cultures.
Following, Sanneh describes the indigenous spread of Christianity throughout Africa. The catalyst for this, unsurprisingly, was the translation of the Scriptures into the native tongues of Africa by Holiness missionaries. The African experience, which knew much of the suffering of body and spirit, resonated with the gospel news of sin and grace; but in order to do so, the message had to be translated into the world view of the African cultures, rather than be simply imposed upon them by outsiders. Thus, translation was empowerment. Indeed, valuing the translated language (and thus the culture and people) is inherent within the act of translation. It is seeing value in the people and trusting them to be able to communicate with God. It also implicitly trusts God to be able to reach these people through their own culture, rather than through an imposed culture or language.
Sanneh then describes the charismatic renewal movements of West Africa and the impact of William Wade Harris, who taught that “salvation-without-strings was the antidote to conversion by civilization (201), but that what mattered more than the thought that the some Europeans were the Africans’ oppressors was the thought that God was their friend. This liberation from the control of European “civilization” brought with it freedom for Africans to interpret the Christian message in their own culture. Again, Christianity is not imposed through transmission, but reinterpreted (translated) in the light of a new culture and in this way, Christianity is to some degree inherently syncretistic, yet retains its essence and will always critique the culture it is being understood by.
Lamin Sanneh was born in Gambia and later immigrated to the United States. Educated on four continents, he is currently Professor of History and World Christianity at Yale University, where he also heads the Council on African Studies. He is an editor-at-large of The Christian Century, an ecumenical magazine, is a contributing editor of the International Bulletin of Missionary Research and co-editor of the forthcoming The Changing Face of Christianity. He also wrote Faith and Power: Christianity and Islam in “Secular” Britain with Lesslie Newbigin and Jenny Taylor.
Sanneh’s overarching assertion with Disciples of All Nations is that Christianity is an interpreted religion whose message must be translated rather than transmitted between cultures in order to truly take root in the hearts of the people. He demonstrates this by tracing the progression of Christianity through history, pointing out the times when Christian mission has been successful and when it has failed. Sanneh avers that the difference between the two lies in the attempt to translate the Christian message and Scriptures into the heart language, and therefore the cultural worldview, of those to whom the missionary comes.
Sanneh begins his argument by looking at the book of Acts in the New Testament, comparing the early Church’s expectations of Jewish Christians with the expectations of Gentile Christians. He describes how Greek Christians were empowered to practice Christianity in their own, different way rather than having to practice it exactly like the Jewish Christians and he attributes this empowerment to the inclusive actions of the early Church combined with Paul’s ability to translate the core message of Christianity from the Jewish culture to the Greek culture. It seems to me that this is where the original founders of Seventh Day Adventism went wrong. They were trying to transmit the exact practices of early Jewish Christians into their culture rather than translating them. But it also seems to me that Seventh Day Adventism has become its own culture, in a way, which mirrors Jewish culture to a large extent, and so it would not make sense, from a cultural standpoint, for SDAs to reject their practices now without having to also reject their native culture in some way.
Sanneh continues with a discussion of the Church, and then Christendom, up into the Middle Ages, particularly stopping to focus on the spread of Christianity in the British Isles and Iceland. He expresses how the Church Fathers had been “pagan for a purpose (42),” that is, they had deliberately used pagan holidays, symbolism and ideas in order to help them translate the message of Christianity into a form that was culturally understandable to those they were trying to reach. He then begins pointing out areas in which early Christianity did not survive as well, most notable in Northern Africa, asserting that in many of these places, the form of Christianity had been transmitted but that the Scriptures and message had not been translated into the heart language of the people. Thus, with the coming of Islam, thousands of Christians converted. Christianity is, then, dependent not upon practicing the exact right liturgy or conduct (as in legalism), but upon the heart’s understanding of Jesus’ love, which missionaries would do well to remember today.
Jumping forward to the era of colonial expansion, Sanneh further demonstrates his idea of cultural translation through the histories of Latin America and Africa. He shows that there really was no real indigenous attraction to Christianity, the religion of their oppressors, until it was translated into the indigenous culture (via the vision of the Blessed Virgin, Our Lady of Guadalupe). He again demonstrates this aversion to mission due to its attachment to colonization (and thus, transmission of simply the form of Christianity) in Africa with the coming of Catholicism via the Portuguese. However, in this case, the expression of Catholicism eventually died out because no indigenous translation occurred. It was somewhat surprising to me, however, to hear that certain African Catholics of this time chose to be martyred alongside their Portuguese rulers rather than deny their faith in the face of Muslim conquest, a reminder of the prevenient grace of God (in which God is already at work before, despite and through us).
The eventual actualization of African Christianity is then discussed through the use of two opposing models: that of David Livingstone (who advocated for the indigenous people), and that of Cecil Rhodes (founder of the highly discriminatory nation of Rhodesia). While Livingstone lifted the Africans up, Rhodes subjugated them. It was Livingstone that truly made an impact, valuing the Africans enough to take the time to attempt to translate the actual message of the gospel to them in their own culture rather than simply forcing them to practice the shape of Christianity. While it can also be argued in the two cases of Latin America and Africa that Christianity did not spread through the indigenous cultures while it was forced upon them by their colonial rulers, I think Sanneh is correct in his argument concerning linguistic and cultural translation because translation was the catalyst for Christianity when it DID spread naturally into the indigenous cultures.
Following, Sanneh describes the indigenous spread of Christianity throughout Africa. The catalyst for this, unsurprisingly, was the translation of the Scriptures into the native tongues of Africa by Holiness missionaries. The African experience, which knew much of the suffering of body and spirit, resonated with the gospel news of sin and grace; but in order to do so, the message had to be translated into the world view of the African cultures, rather than be simply imposed upon them by outsiders. Thus, translation was empowerment. Indeed, valuing the translated language (and thus the culture and people) is inherent within the act of translation. It is seeing value in the people and trusting them to be able to communicate with God. It also implicitly trusts God to be able to reach these people through their own culture, rather than through an imposed culture or language.
Sanneh then describes the charismatic renewal movements of West Africa and the impact of William Wade Harris, who taught that “salvation-without-strings was the antidote to conversion by civilization (201), but that what mattered more than the thought that the some Europeans were the Africans’ oppressors was the thought that God was their friend. This liberation from the control of European “civilization” brought with it freedom for Africans to interpret the Christian message in their own culture. Again, Christianity is not imposed through transmission, but reinterpreted (translated) in the light of a new culture and in this way, Christianity is to some degree inherently syncretistic, yet retains its essence and will always critique the culture it is being understood by.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Book Review #5
Emerging Churches by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger
Eddie Gibbs is the Director of the Institute for the Study of Emerging Churches at the Brehm Center for Worship, Theology and the Arts at Fuller Theological Seminary and is also Professor of Church Growth there. His book ChurchNext has won a book award from Christianity Today. He has served in ministry in England, Chile and the United States. Ryan Bolger is assistant professor of church in contemporary culture at the School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is also the academic director of the Master of Arts in global leadership there. Emerging Churches is the result of Bolger’s PhD research with Gibbs on a distinctively postmodern style of church emerging throughout the United States and United Kingdom.
Eddie Gibbs is the Director of the Institute for the Study of Emerging Churches at the Brehm Center for Worship, Theology and the Arts at Fuller Theological Seminary and is also Professor of Church Growth there. His book ChurchNext has won a book award from Christianity Today. He has served in ministry in England, Chile and the United States. Ryan Bolger is assistant professor of church in contemporary culture at the School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is also the academic director of the Master of Arts in global leadership there. Emerging Churches is the result of Bolger’s PhD research with Gibbs on a distinctively postmodern style of church emerging throughout the United States and United Kingdom.
The main premise of Gibbs’ and Bolger’s book is that this new style of doing and viewing church arises out of their members’ desire to be missional communities while also seeking to be faithful followers of Jesus within their postmodern contexts. They begin by explaining the shift that has been occurring within Western cultures from modernity to “postmodernity” and towards a “network society” as well as the church’s increasing occupation of a place on the margins of society. Reflecting on my experiences as a study abroad student in Scotland, a time in which I had yet to learn the terms “post-Christendom” and “postmodern,” these ideas have actually helped to decipher some of the thoughts expressed to me by my non-Christian friends there about the Church. These experiences also allow me a greater understanding of why emerging churches have responded to the culture and shaped themselves in the ways they have, as Bolger and Gibbs go on to summarize in the next chapter. They briefly follow the gradual development of emerging churches, evaluate three core unifying foci (identifying with the life of Jesus, transforming secular space, and living as a community) as well as six common practices (welcoming the stranger, serving with generosity, participating as producers, creating as created beings, leading as a body, and taking part in spiritual activities).
In their chapter on emerging church’s identification with Jesus, Gibbs and Bolger explain that these churches look to Jesus as the one who initiated the work of the Kingdom of God and view their purpose as pointing to this kingdom in both its “already” and “not yet” state through their communal practices. They are concerned with bringing heaven to earth, which is a trend that I agree with and have seen and helped to implement within my own Nazarene tradition. I find the idea of the gospel as a holistic way of life to be a far more challenging pursuit than that of striving to fill a church’s pews with bodies. This holism is continued within emerging churchs’ endeavour to transform “secular” space. To them, there is no such thing as secular space, but all areas of life are infused with the spiritual. This is something I offhand agree with, but struggle to find the meaning of, especially in regards to the realms of science and politics. Science, which uses methodological materialism within its pursuit of knowledge, is somewhat less hard for me to reconcile because my interactions with my professors as a biology major in undergrad, have allowed me to learn how to draw spiritual implications from discoveries in the natural world (such as drawing the idea of the interconnectedness of all Creation from the idea of common descent). Politics I find to be a confusing realm to begin with and while I agree with the idea of a separation between church and state, I often wonder how involved Christians should be in politics, how a Christian politician could justify their choice in voting according to their personal beliefs or according to the will of their constituency (if the two come in conflict) and to what extent voting according to one’s own personal religious convictions is imposing one’s personal beliefs upon another.
The third focus Bolger and Gibbs describe is living in community, which is something I have felt led to be doing for a while now. Modernity’s focus on the individual created an archipelago society, with each person an island. Humans were created to live in community (another spiritual implication one can draw from the theory of evolution: its occurrence in populations/communities rather than individuals), but I have rarely experienced what that means. Emerging churches practice welcoming the stranger, or as my Mennonite friend Kate has expressed to me about her own tradition: those outside of us are us and we are incomplete without them, therefore we seek them out and welcome them because if we didn’t, we would be incomplete. This is related to the second practice Gibbs and Bolger describe: serving with generosity. Rather than donating money to and developing social programs within their churches, emerging congregations focus on a socially engaged way of life, serving through their vocations and with their time rather than through church-administered programs, seeking to bring wholeness and become “good news people before proclaiming the Good News message (145).” I believe that this shift is a necessary correction to the agenda-minded evangelism of modernity. Rather than valuing a person for the influence we could have over their spiritual life, Christians should value that person for themselves. Our agenda must be lavishing the love of Christ on those around us. If they allow us the privilege and opportunity of speaking truth into their spiritual life, that is wonderful, but that only comes through valuing the person (rather than the body on the pew) and being present with them for their own sake. Otherwise, we are merely selling a product.
Emerging churches practice participation within their churches through production. That is, rather than sitting and consuming the sermon and worship as performed for them by the preacher and worship leader and moving to a different church when they feel that they are no longer personally “getting anything out of” the service, emerging church members take responsibility for the services themselves. The worship becomes an expression of who they are as a people and is their own gift to God. Often, all ages are included (for example, a seven-year-old hosting a dancing circle). I find emerging-style worship particularly attractive as it allows participants to express their full being to God, rather than having the worship dictated to them by a worship leader who strictly worships through music, and their own particular style of music at that. Similarly, emerging churches support creativity and the arts within their services and worship, with members worshipping by giving out of their own creative instincts. I find this idea similar to Catholic theology and its idea of humans as co-creators with God, which has been a particular influence on my own life (another implication from evolution: God created/is creating a world that can create itself and that can partner with Him in creation).
Emerging churches’ leadership structure is generally one of democracy (rather than some form of republican policy as seen in most denominational polities). Consequently they tend to be fewer than 40 people. Although I like small churches, I am not altogether keen on churches that are that small. Thus, I prefer a more republican polity which allows for a slightly larger community to form and can allow for a structured partnership (reflecting the influence modernity has had upon me) with other congregations, because some structure often does need to be in place as extreme democracy tends towards chaos.
Gibbs and Bolger wrap up their study by describing the pull that emerging churches have often found towards ancient spiritual practices, especially those practiced in ancient Celtic churches. They are find these practices (such as candle burning, lectio divina or praying the hours) attractive not because they are ancient or mystical but because they incorporate a spiritual rhythm into daily life. Interestingly, I found these same practices attractive long, long before I had heard of emerging churches or postmodernity, possibly reflecting my own position as a product of my generation (an idea that would take too long to do justice to in this “brief” review).
Quick Reflectifrom Class on 11/30/09
On Monday we discussed Anabaptism as a case study of Free Churches. It was very interesting because I have always found Mennonites and the Amish fascinating but never found the time to look into their histories much. But discussing their rejection of infant baptism as a political statement has helped me realize how many of the traditions within Reformation traditions that I reject are actually rejections of an older tradition that I would also reject.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Quick Reflection on Class on 11/18/09
Today we talked about the New Monastic movement and began discussing Lutheranism. New Monasticism is a form of Christianity that I resonate with and have been considering for a while now. The emphasis on hospitality as a lifestyle is something that I find very attractive but I have not been personally exposed to very much in my life. I am also somewhat afraid of commitment. Consequently, I have been a bit hesitant to delve to deeply - outside of reading about and discussing it - into it in my own personal faith journey. I have a bit of the wanderlust, so making a commitment to a community is a bit frightening to me, but I also acknowledge the amazing things that are achieved only through long-term commitment to a single community. It's a tension I'm dealing with and working out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
