moving to wordpress

Dear Friends and Co-writers,

Since google-blogger have updated this site things haven't been working the same way so I have taken the decision to transfer the blog over to wordpress the new address is:

http://intentionalchristiancommunity.wordpress.com/

Please email me if you used to contribute to this blog and I will add you as an author.

Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused,

James

moving to wordpress

Dear Friends and Co-writers,

Since google-blogger have updated this site things haven't been working the same way so I have taken the decision to transfer the blog over to wordpress the new address is:

http://intentionalchristiancommunity.wordpress.com/

Please email me if you used to contribute to this blog and I will add you as an author.

Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused,

James

Peace March, London

I was reading the news reports of the protest against gun crime, held yesterday in the Capital, when I came across this quote by twenty-three year old Adrian Harrison:

‘I wanted to be in the presence of believers’

It's such a powerful phrase, but why does he want to be amongst the faithful, what does it mean for him to be with the believers, and how will faith make a difference on the streets? I don’t have all the answers, but I know that Adrian Harrison isn’t the only one turning to the community of salvation and to God for help.

Heavenly Father,
I do not understand the social pressures or the culture of gang violence faced by those in southeast London, but I know that you understand all things. In the midst of this area be with those caught up in gang warfare, those in gangs, those intimidated by gangs, and those who become victims of these gangs.
In the name of the Prince of Peace,
Amen

For a God who can make the whole universe in a big bang the odd resurrection should be child’s play!

I don’t know whether you’ve heard people say they ‘kind of’ believe in the God who created the universe but they don’t believe in the Jesus. I guess the barren, loveless, and deterministic world of Professor Dawkins isn’t for them, but neither do they want to surrender the idea that they are masters of their own destiny. Thus, they reason that whilst the world has both material and spiritual depths the creator has no continuing interest in the creation. It is left to them to make what they will of the world, to plumb the hidden corners of creation, to discover the ‘spiritual’ meaning behind life.

It is a strange conclusion to stumble across because who would invest the time and care needed to form all the wonders of this world, the ocean deeps, the highest mountains, the impenetrable jungles, the never-ending horizons, and the perfect sunsets? Also, how might one hope to find spiritual meaning if the Creator cares nothing for His creation, and how is humanity any better for having a creator if we have been orphaned by that power?

In contrast to the cold, pre-determined, scientific world of the atheist and the creator abandoned world of the neo-agnostic, the Christian claim is that there is a God who cares for all of His creation. Indeed, the entire earth is sustained by His providence. Humans are neither an accident of science nor an orphan of the creator, but children of a parent God who loves us.

Still, some people will be unconvinced that the God who created the universe is the same God who raised Jesus from the dead. ‘It is against the natural laws of the universe’, such people may protest, and this is of course true. In fact, if someone were to show that Jesus resurrection was a natural occurrence then the claims of Christianity would not be un-sensational.

I can not hope to do justice to such a broad topic in four hundred word blog, but if you are unconvinced I can only encourage you to pray, read the bible, and listen/watch the believers. It may be that as you are seeking truth, the One who is True will find you!

Why Is Statecraft Problematic?

Ok, so I thought the answer to this question was obvious but as ever I am being asked to clarify my opinions, here goes:

It is easy to see why the Church of England, whose leader is appointed by the Prime Minister, whose Bishops sit in the House of Lords, and who recognise the Queen as the head of the Church might see legislation which curtails Christian freedom to be an issue! Nor is it difficult to see that for years there has been a kind of truce between the Church and the State, whether you are a member of a dissenting church or the recognised state church you have enjoyed the benefits of Christian freedoms resulting from that truce.

I have in the past welcomed greater separation between the church and the government, because I believe there are particular beliefs which result in Christians living in a different way to secular people, but to welcome legislation which could curtail my freedom to live as Christ has called me to live is not something I am obliged to do.

I am interested in church history and some of the earliest debates Christians had surrounded the extent to which it was appropriate for Christians to seek martyrdom. Orthodox opinion was that to seek persecution and martyrdom ruled you out from being considered a martyr for your faith. I am not being melodramatic to use this as an example, I do not think we are in danger of imminent persecution, but the principle is clear Christians are to seek to live peaceably alongside the government and they are not to invite conflict between the government and the Church nor are they to seek to use the power of the State.

I hope that is clear, as always my opinions are in the process of formation and reformation, so I welcome your thoughts.

Statecraft: A Secular Church?

I don’t know what you think of the Roman Catholic and Anglican rebellion over the freedom of Catholic Adoption Agencies to refuse homosexual couples the right to adopt children from their clinics - it seems based upon an interesting mix of biblical warrant, natural law ethics, and established tradition/ practice. I guess I’m not so concerned about this one particular issue as about a wider concern, voiced by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor and Bishop Tom Wright, as they accused the government of ‘imposing a new morality’. I fear the Cardinal and Bishops are right it is becoming increasingly difficult for Roman-Catholic, Anglo-Catholics, Evangelical, Orthodox, Charismatic, mainstream Christians to maintain the faith they inherited. I’m sure that some will find it worrying that the State has decided to legislate against the devout beliefs/ convictions of many mainstream Christians.
It is not the first time the state has legislated against Christian convictions, but in the past on issues such as abortion, individual Christians have been allowed the right to object on moral grounds. Sadly, no such right has been afforded Catholic Adoption Agencies.
I guess we are now seeing the separation of the Church and the State, we are learning what has always been true: the State and Church are living competing narratives! Over 1600 years ago, St Augustine wrote De civitate Dei and revealed the confrontation between the City of God and the City of Man. Claiming that the secular state is just a false imitation of the City of God, the Church. William Cavanaugh expounds this truth by writing ‘the modern state is “founded on certain stories of nature and human nature, the origins of human conflict, and the remedies of such conflict in the enactment of the state itself”’. In contrast, the Church is founded upon the story of creation, fall, and redemption.
It seems clear that the State is setting itself up as a source of alternative salvation. In other words, ‘the modern state seeks to replace the church by itself becoming a soteriological institution’. I guess now it may be appropriate to declare that the State is in the hands of anti-Christ – a false copy of the Body of Christ, the Church. In an academic setting these words feel comfortable, couched in philosophical, intellectual language, but today these ideas feel deeply disturbing- what do you think?

Note: quotes taken from James K.A. Smith's 'Introducing Radical Orthodoxy; Mapping a Post-Secular Theology' (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2004) pp.132-133

Speaking Truthfully- thoughts on 'salvation even in sin'

Yesterday, I was reading an essay by Stanley Hauerwas entitled 'salvation even in sin' within this essay Hauerwas reflects upon Ephesians 4:25-5:2 and draws links between our ability to speak truthfully about our lives and our understanding of sin and grace.

The same day, I had the great privilege to be given a preview of the next fresh expressions DVD, which features talking heads with Graham Horsley, Graham Carter, and Martyn Atkins. I was struck by something Martyn said about our failure to effectively disciple people over past hundred years. ‘How is it’, he remonstrated, ‘that people can go to church their entire lives and the something happens and fifty years of discipleship goes out the window?’

I suspect we find part of the answer in Ephesians 4:25 – 5:2. Sadly, the church has become a place where people put up the barriers. Instead of being real about the struggles we have faced, we smile and say things like ‘I’m great thanks’ even when things have not been good at all. I guess sometimes this is because we are scared of being honest about our struggles; we are afraid of speaking truthfully about our lives, and when somebody does, very often they receive condemnation rather than grace.

I believe in holistic small groups not because small group discipleship is the flavour of the week but because it seems to be the starting place for learning to speak truthfully to one another, to radiate grace. Not the otherworldly grace, which knows no sin, but the real gritty grace illustrated most eloquently in the cross of Christ.

Heavenly Father,
Help us to speak more truthfully about ourselves,
And enable us to listen to one another with grace.
Let us be slow to anger but quick to forgive,
And surround us with your love.
Be with us now,
In the coming minutes,
And help us to know your will.
We ask this in the power of the Holy Spirit,
And trusting in the love of Christ,
Your Son, our Saviour.
Amen


* In work at the moment I'm organising a conference entitled, 'Creating Effective Disciples; through small groups' it is designed to resource and encourage churches and leaders with small group ministries. It will be run at High Leigh in Hertfordshire on the 13th and 14th March, for more information, send me an email by clicking here.
Thanks.
James

Our Victory!!

I was considering the significance of eschatology for Christian discipleship in the midst of a hostile secular society and I came across this story on the Ekklesia Project website:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa was preaching in the cathedral in Capetown during the days of apartheid. Police and paramilitary lined the walls of the packed sanctuary, intimidating the congregation and recording everything that was said. Tutu preached prophetically of the coming day when the walls of apartheid would fall, and even though the armed might of the state was powerful, it was not God. “Indeed,” Tutu said to the police, “You have already lost.” He paused, flashed his famous smile, “So why don’t you join the winning side?” The crowd roared and everyone got up dancing.

I thank God that I was not born amidst racial hatred or communist dictatorships, that I know Christ and that I am free to worship Him without fear of persecution. I thank God that the victory is in Christ. I only ask that I would know more fully, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the implications of Christ’s victory for my life in Christian discipleship.

Lord God teach me:
to turn the other cheek,
to act with meekness,
to renounce violence,
to forgive as you have forgiven,
to offer mercy,
to avoid retaliation,
to resist accommodation,
to live with integrity,
to honour You,
to the glory of Jesus Christ,
Amen

Ministerial Vocation

Christian Hope

God is not finished with inherited churches yet. He is still calling, equipping, and sending but it may be time for the young to teach the old. A radical review of candidating, training, and deployment is necessary if the United Reformed Church/ Methodist Church is to position itself to ride the wave of God’s Spirit.

Current processes developed in a settled era of church history, they are modelled on the three-fold ministry of the Pastoral Epistles with moderators/chairs, ministers/presbyters, and church related community workers/ deacons.

Roles and Candidating

These models met the needs of an established church, however, they fail to meet the needs of a church within a changing paradigm- ok some will argue that the earlier five/four-fold ministry found in Ephesians (Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers) is reflected within the breadth of our current lay and ordained posts. However, this seems to be incidental rather than by design.

It is perhaps worth considering these roles in the light of the Everett Roger’s diffusion theory, which creates five categories of people from innovators to laggards. It seems that our candidating process militates against ‘innovators’ and ‘early adopters’ whose character traits are most likely to correspond with apostles, prophets, or evangelists. It is likely that these individuals are likely to be seen as dangerous risk takers, or aggressive reformers and therefore a challenge to the established way of doing things.

Training

I have known early adopters to drop out of the candidating process before reaching the training process, this may occur when a candidate no longer feels confident in the training being offered. In these situations, the candidate tends to take issue with the model of training offered; education for intellectual theoretical pastors/teachers, rather than training for vocational practical prophets/evangelists.

I think we should note the high input into initial college based teaching and low investment in ongoing church based training. In a rapidly changing culture, indeed paradigm, high input lower ongoing training means many ministers are unequipped for ministry in our post-modern world. Related research carried out by Christian Schwartz suggests formal theological training has a negative impact upon church growth, what is it about our theological colleges has this effect?

Deployment

In terms of deployment there are less problems, although more could be done to place innovative apostles/ prophets/ evangelists in churches/circuits in which will best release their potential. Ideally, the ministers would be involved in conversations with churches seeking to negotiate a shared appointment. However, there are many ministers, who may consider themselves innovators or early adopters, apostles or prophets who are not capable of filling these roles. It is therefore necessary to have a process of mutual discernment, open to scripture, tradition, reason, and experience exercised prayerfully in the power of the Holy Spirit.

All in All

In the midst of these thoughts, criticisms, and ideas about candidating, training, and deployment one truth can get lost: God remains faithful and for that we should all remain thankful.

In Christ,
James

An Agenda for Prayer

This post sets down some significant challenges and opportunities facing Christianity in the United Kingdom. These concerns arose out of a prayer meeting on New Years eve, but highlight several areas importance for 2007.


External

Social

- Criticism of faith schools.
- Intolerance of religious symbolism *British Airways.
- War on Iraq *Clash of civilizations (Muslim vs. Christian) rhetoric.
+ Voices of Faith Politics:
Elizabeth Windsor
John Sentamu
Rowan Williams

Individual

- Consumerism no longer discussed just taken as a given for many.
- Pornography issues linked to availability via the web.
- Growing scepticism and hedonism among young people.
- Drugs and Alcohol fuels domestic violence, escapism with ambiguous relationship to real life.
- Family break down a mistrust of long term relationships



Internal

Artistic

- Pseudo-spiritual writings: like the Gnostic Gospels, the Gospel of Judas, Dan Brown’s novels, Phillip Pullman’s books, even the Harry Potter series.
- Suspicion of authority and thereby orthodoxy and organised religion.
+ Growing popularity of C.S. Lewis’ novels.


Scientific

- Richard Dawkins and Christians like Bishop Shelby Spong.
- Growth in militant Atheism
- The book The God Delusion.
- Creationism vs. the Big Bang theory argument
+ Alistair McGrath

Media
Internet
Personal phones
Mobile technology
Satellite TV – multiple channels

*Vicarious Living, seemingly without consequences is causing damage to the soul.


Church
It is not necessarily right for the Church to avoid the growing intolerance towards Christianity but neither should we seek to provoke secularists we must be prepared to answer them and we must continue speak truth, live justly, and love mercy. In the midst of all of this the Church must remain true to its own agenda and continue to be a light in dark times and places.


I invite fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to remember these issues in their prayers throughout the next year.

Yours in Christ,
James

thoughts on beauty...

The secret of beauty is not in what is seen it is in what is not seen, you can not replicate great master pieces, your can not capture love, because it is not something wholly present but something transcendent. Likewise, beauty is not passing away (saeculum) but rather eternal.

The myth of this world is that beauty is about what is seen, understood, and temporary. But Christians know this to be false for scripture assures us that what is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal. We are taught to see the world holistically; materially, emotionally, and spiritually – to look beyond images to the heart and soul of a person.

The great preacher, Charles Spurgeon once said ‘an ounce of heart knowledge was worth all the head knowledge in the world’ and he was right but there is a deeper call for people to hear the Spirit in their depths. For beauty (and the beauty of God) is not something formed just between the heart of a subject and an object itself but between the testimony of the Spirit to one’s soul.

I imagine some readers might think that I’ve finally lost touch with reality, but search yourselves – is not the world in the bosom of God, are there not moments of perfect contentment when you feel totally at one in communion with God. It is these moments that the world seems most completely beautiful, when you glimpse with your soul something of heaven.

You cannot describe such moments, you cannot capture them physically, nor are they purely emotional experiences (though they may be emotional), but they are something more, they are spiritual. It is perhaps the feeling one gets when one finds oneself in step with God – a note to self on beauty seek communion, look beyond the images, feel more than emotion, listen to the Spirit.

some quick thoughts on models of atonement

1. sacrificial (salvation is bought by blood) – the nature of God is presented here as one who demands blood sacrifice, but the OT states that God demands obedience rather than sacrifice.
2. judicial (salvation through punishment on our behalf) - often presented as a way of reconciling justice and holiness with the mercy and love of God, but unpopular in post-Christendom context as Christianity is moving away rather than towards the seat of power and judgement (but perhaps this can be reconciled).
3. merit (salvation Christ won favour of God) – to what extent does Christ have to win the favour of God for our salvation (marcion theology).

- vulnerable to questions concerning the definition of sin (wrong done to fellow people but ultimately to God) criticism of deontic models which make God seem petty.

4. exemplary (set an example for us) – fails to deal with sin as an ontological reality.

5. participatory – through participation in Christ’s death and resurrection we become alive to God in Christ Jesus. Our person is changed as we put off the old person and become a new person (the old person is morally culpable). I fear this either lends itself to a dualistic (Gnostic) understanding of human nature, or to a bizarre metaphysical proposal.

6. a hybrid of the participatory model that recognises salvation deals with the ontological and relational problem whilst our sin is dealt with as a deontological problem through Jesus suffering in our place.

- in this theory of atonement biblical language of ransom, suffering, and sacrifice remain valid and are supported by a true and Trinitarian understanding of God’s nature, whilst the emphasis remains upon the relational within the participatory model. And of course none of this denies the significance of Christ’s death as a witness and example of resistance against the domination system.

Religion and Politics- what to do?

Please note- I struggled to write this because it really cuts to the heart of who I am as a Christian, who I want to be, how I want to live, and how I want others to learn to live as well, it also leaves me wondering whether there is a viable Christian political agenda- on the right or the left.

I think the religion and politics issues are really dangerous- as an evangelical it often hurts me to be characterised as a greedy, wasteful, arrogant, persecuting bigot. I think we as a church have a duty to respond to issues of poverty, global warming (and other green issues), and militarism (the myth of redemptive violence). I’m not sure how we can set these issues apart from our views on homosexuality, euthanasia (or assisted dying), and Christian education and formation.

Our secular governments trust in economic policies that protect our individual economies nurturing stable growth these policies set other nations (some of the worlds poorest) at a disadvantage economically. As Christians, we may want to criticise these policies but if we legislate against the policies the secular American wheat farmer goes out of business someone else pays the cost of our political agenda- the result is bitterness towards the Christian theocratic agenda and towards Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.

I was speaking to a Canadian who works for the Commonwealth, yesterday, focussing on world health issues (most notably HIV AIDS). We discussed the Christian role in combating the aids pandemic across Africa; he noted that in some countries the church is providing 50% of the overall health care. It is an amazing testimony to Jesus Christ who healed lepers, reconciled community and outcast, and preached an alternative lifestyle that the Church continues to be Christ’s hands and feet and voice in the contemporary world. However, you can’t legislate for community reconciliation or Christian moral values these things come about as we accept the discipline of the Father, follow in the footsteps of Jesus and receive renewal through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Consider another situation ‘global warming’ at the moment, our nations are placing blind faith in further scientific and technological developments save us from an environmental catastrophe. We might want to say as the People of God actually living God’s way and being good stewards of the earth will save us from global melt down. But, it depends where you put your trust and in whom you put your trust for many the cost of following Christ with our natural resources is far too high- so how do we work this out?

We can either trust in our democratic right by legislate against homosexuality, bad stewardship (or what we perceive is bad stewardship) of the environment, assisted dying, and health care. Alternatively, we can pursue the Christian theocratic agenda through the Church, which acknowledges Christ as its head. In this situation, we provide an example to the world of good (faithful) sexual ethics good stewardship, good palliative care (and good dying), good (holistic) health care.
I know it is a difficult choice, particularly when it means allowing for suffering (perhaps that’s what it felt like for God when he allowed us to go our own way), but it is surely the better way for a people who believe that there is both judgement and life after death.

What do you think? Is there a way to square the circle that I haven't seen? What does it mean to live 'in' but not 'of' the world?

On Giving One’s Life

A homily for Remembrance Sunday

In contemporary society, the notion of sacrifice is unpopular to have a cause to live and die for brings to mind fundamentalists, extremists, and terrorists. Our understanding of sacrifice is tainted by these dangerous individuals who seem to have such reckless disregard for life, even their own lives.

So instead of offering up our lives, we seek to preserve them, pickling ourselves with beauty products, visiting the altar-less temples of health spas, and when that fails to save us many undergo the surgeon’s knife. In this world of immortal youth, death is chased from view; confined to high walled cemeteries where the bereaved, those for whom death is no longer an anathema, go to remember. Still for the world outside those places of remembrance, death is the elephant in the room, the final taboo.

Then we have a day like today, a moment in which the rules are suspended; where the sacrifice and death are bought out from behind high walls and paraded through the streets. It is today that we remember the courage of those who gave their lives for our future, and paid the ultimate price for our freedom. And for some of us we look back on a time we cannot remember, a time when people believed in a cause, in black and white, in right and wrong.

Still for us outside these moments of remembrance, causes, and the sacrifices made on behalf of them, are dangerous shadowy rumours whispered in private meetings at the dead of night. Instead, we safe people seek comfort and convenience, far be it from us to sacrifice our security for the cause of another, let alone our lives.

However, it is ironic given our distaste of sacrifice that we end up making the greatest sacrifice of all marginalising the foreigner, oppressing the poor, denying the dispossessed their rights. So, today we remember those who sacrificed their lives for us and we receive God’s challenge to us, inviting us to stake our lives on His altar.

To the United Reformed Church

I think we are at a stage nationally where we will have to close church buildings, move congregations and focus resources. I know to some that sounds callous but we are getting to the point where our current model of ministry won’t work- we simply don’t have the money or ministers and to carry on as we are will be impossible within the next ten years. It is no good to have a mentality of maintenance for decline; it is time we took the bull by the horns cut the ministers, projects, or church buildings that are a dead weight around our necks and resourced innovative new initiatives, church plants, and flagship congregations.

It is time we sought visionary leaders rather than the church management- our ministers are not called to serve churches they are called to serve God and ordination recognises this call. It is this fact that makes ministry a vocation rather than a job! It is time we learnt to release and support ministers for mission rather than insisting they do ministry- ‘the way it has always been done’. We should recognise that missiology drives ecclesiology not the other way around i.e. the church is the motor for mission not the destination of mission.

I am a believer in ecumenism, but not ecumenical partnership driven by falling numbers and closing congregations. It has to be a mission orientated ecumenism; it is my belief that this is far more about organic, grass roots projects than organisational union. The most successful ecumenical initiatives have not been formed institutionally, but they have developed through cooperation for mission. In every case, they involve people giving up the desire to insist people come to our church and start thinking about our church (Catholics, Protestants, and Pentecostals) going to them.

The west, in the twenty-first century, has to be one of the most challenging times in which to be in Christian ministry. I know it has been said before that the church is in decline and young man there is no guarantee that you will be in ministry in twenty years time etc. etc. It is my belief that this is now true unless ministers are released to mission led ministry and unless ministers have the ability to meet the demands of mission led ministry then they may not be in ministry in twenty years time. I know there will be those who accuse me of negativity, of despair, of pedalling self-fulfilling prophecies but believe me that is not my intention. I am just convinced that the church will live on and the fact that God is still calling people in the ministry of the URC is proof that the church will live on but whether it will be called the United Reformed Church or have the same structures of the URC is in doubt.

I want to finish this with a final plea to ministers and to churches please be mission minded, serve without expecting reward, love those who seem unlovely, and seek the Kingdom above all.

A Christian's Job

I was recently asked what my role as Christian was and here is my reply-

I think the best place to start is to explain a bit about myself and my perspectives on life. I am an evangelical Christian but I live in the United Kingdom and like most British people I am bemused by much that passes for evangelical American Christianity.

1. because it presumes that the proper subject of Christian ethics is America rather than the Church.

2. because it strikes me that a truly evangelical Christian faith has more to say about the poor and the oppressed than human sexuality.

I suspect that much of the conservative wing of the church is captive to a politically partisan and non-Christian ideology. I could be described as 'postmodern' in some circles as I do not place much stock in universal foundations for knowledge- for example during the Tsunami villages who saw the sea retract in Indonesia fled to the mountains because ancient stories suggested this was a sign of impending disaster- in many contexts we would laugh at their superstitions but how true do we know those myths to be now.

In terms of ethical decisions I am not convinced that what is possible and permissable (scientifically or democratically) is necessarily what is best theologically. However, I do not believe that forcing others to live by theological convictions that they do not share with Christians is helpful or justifiable.

So what do I think the way ahead must be- well it involves freedom of religious conviction (not pluralism nor deism or atheistic civil religion, rather plurality). In the education system this may either involve more independent religious schools (Muslim, Hindu, Christian etc.) or freedom of religion within institutional schools.

I think that banning expressions of worship for fear that it offends others represents an infringement upon civil liberties. I am not saying that such people should be forced to pray or join in but nor do I think people should be stopped from expressing their faith. I am convinced that not having faith in the spiritual or in a personal creator God is not a default or neutral position and the continuing growth of Christianity worldwide seems to testify to this fact.

In a sense I am saying that it is not my job to submit my faith to your measurement of truthfulness. Instead, it is my job to live by my faith in such a way that people commend me for integrity of character and sincerity of conviction. My job far from being to justify my own lifestyle choices is to resist justifying them to accept that they are different from others around me and to resist conforming to a monocultural (atheistic or pluralistic) understanding of life.

In this way I hope to commend my faith to others. The Amish community's recent reaction to the Carl Robert's murders is a good example of this faith in action. It is my belief that there exists a most excellent way and I am attempting to walk it.

The Emerging Church Manifesto

Well I've always been scared of being considered moderate so heres to saying good bye to the chances of that happening!

It is time to cut the froth, the coffee and candles, turn off the Apple Macs, and grasp the serious theological vision of thinkers such as Lesslie Newbigin and Stanley Hauerwas. We are living in an alien culture and social order, and we have given in to worshipping the false god of technological, capitalist, democratic government. It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the lie that to be ‘in the world’ means we must participate fully in a western democratic society, in its technological developments, in its financial structures (and the often dubious benefits of those structures), and in its politics.

In Christendom, we entered into a pact with secular society (a kin to buying horses from Egypt or yoking oneself with the unbeliever) and we are living with that legacy. It was a bit like a suzerainty treaty and the state was our suzerain, meaning the state always had the upper hand (and led us around by the nose). For a long time this compromise worked for the church, we established schools, built hospitals, we were highly thought of in society, our bishops represented us in the House of Lords and the common man was expected to attend ‘worship’. The problem is that after 1500 years, the Local Education Authority no longer feels the need for our input education, the Local Health Authority manages our hospitals, and people don’t want or have to attend church. It is clear now that our social order is governed by principles opposed to those of Jesus Christ.

It is so distressing to see that the church has lost so much influence in society and yet I am glad that the compromises we made are out in the open. I am pleased because we now have the opportunity to build a church that is more faithful to its Lord. However, we may have to start from scratch because the established ‘church’ or ‘churches’ remain fatally compromised both financially, legally, and politically. I also think that this time is going to be far more difficult than it was the last time because we have to compete against the schools and hospitals the secular state annexed and corrupted. However, we were part of the glue that held society together and without the religious sponsorship social order will continue to decline and the government will get increasingly prescriptive.

In contrast to this approach, the Christian community will not be ruled by force but by commitment to participation within a common life together. It is from this closer communion that we will establish hospitals and schools that will compete with secular institutions. In a Christian hospital, you will not be offered an abortion but alternative support and care, not that people have to accept this they are welcome to go elsewhere. In a Christian hospital, you will not be offered the right to assisted euthanasia but better palliative care to enable you to die with dignity (nor will it be necessary to prolong your life using technology when you feel it is your time to go home). In Christian schools, we will not give spiritual development apart from practical disciplines and education, instead we will teach that although science suggests that the world is evolving due to the ‘survival of the fittest’ our faith teaches us to care for the poor and the weak.

In short, we will provide hospitals that minister holistically to whole people rather than distinguishing falsely between the body and the spirit. The emerging church will provide schools that teach children about the material and spiritual world in which we live (the future church will not be deceived by dualistic notions). It will no longer be said that the ‘emperor rules in time and Christ in eternity’ because the Christ’s kingdom will be now and not yet.

One last comment, as I sit back and reflect upon this manifesto for the emerging church it occurs to me that the state will not like the church of the future, we should expect persecution but worse than persecution we should expect to meet our Constantine… we must be clear we have learnt our lesson- the only suzerain we need is our Lord Jesus Christ. So let us renew our covenant with God and never make the same mistake again.

Against the Post-Constantinian Agenda

I find myself growing increasingly bored of the post-Constantian agenda not because I believe it is inherently wrong it’s just poorly advocated. I agree that the church must be prepared to forgo some of the privileges it received as a sponsor of the state but that isn’t the churches job to tell the state to disinvest in the church. It is the churches role to be critical of the areas in which the state has distorted its ministry and forced it to act in the interests of earthly citizenship.

In the future we may lose funding for Christian schools but the church should work to create communities that can sponsor Christian education of the highest standard that is not dependent on state funding. It seems to me that the state may design chapels in hospitals as inter-faith environments or even remove places of worship from state hospitals altogether but the church must subvert these decisions by creating Christian hospitals that provide a different quality of care for ill, elderly, and dying. This must involve investing in prayer and healing centres, with a focus on palliative care rather than sanctioning assisted dying (as pressure is put on the state to legalise euthanasia).

Indeed let the church arise with a positive post-Constantian agenda rather than a pathetic capitulation to the secular status quo. It is for us to teach the world how to live as God intended, not for us to sacrifice our influence on the altar of secular politics. Although, we may only recover the identity and shape of a viable Christian community for the twenty-first century when the nations we are find ourselves dispersed amongst are so decadent and corrupt that the Christian legacy is no longer remembered.

spiritual and political- a moral quandary

I have a moral quandary- I know these problems don’t get us anywhere but this one is being played out before our eyes. America and Britain invade Iraq, Christians oppose this action, not because we don’t believe that invading Iraq as part of war on terrorism could reduce the threat of terrorism (although it seems clear now that it hasn’t) but because we believe we are called to suffer (and even die) for divine purposes. I can see how the decision not to go to war was obvious but what happens when you have gone to war, do you pull out when your casualties start mounting leaving a vacuum that results in a bloody civil war or do you stay knowing you made the wrong decision in the first place and suffering and dying because of that decision?

I am struck by something Hauerwas wrote in Resident Aliens, referring to the issue of abortion he pointed out that the good news of the gospel was not ‘you’re not allowed an abortion so deal with it’ the good news of the gospel is ‘you don’t have to live that way we can show you a different way to live’. Our nations have made a terrible mistake by going into Iraq (in a bid to avoid the suffering of another 11th September) they have unleashed terrible blood shed on that land, but if they pull out (in an attempt to avoid more soldiers dying) there will be a bloody civil war. Our countries made a decision and this choice has changed the lives of millions of Iraqi civilians (for better or for worse) now our countries must take responsibility for their actions.
I hear conservatives talking about closing and banning abortion clinics, but if we are going to force pregnant women to carry through with their child birth then we must take responsibility for caring for them (for bearing them up in the hard times). I think in Iraq if we take the decision to pull our troops out in an effort to reduce our national and personal suffering then we must have a plan for bearing with those who suffer the consequences of our actions. Once again I want to state my support for Christian Peace Teams who are surely leading the way in the effort to solve this quandary.

Perhaps, we may legitimately say that after the decision to go to war was made we have no more to say about this matter? (but is that right- we have be able to live in a fallen world).

Reflections on Encountering Church, the recent Christian Research UK findings, and one change I would like to make to the United Reformed Church.

According to the recent church census carried out by Dr Peter Brierley the United Reformed Church is losing church members at a higher rate than any other denomination in the United Kingdom. The Overall rate of decline is at 15% whilst the Catholic Church declines at 14% and evangelical churches decline at just 9%. The good news is that this is an improvement on the last figures which revealed that 65% of churches are in decline and only 21% of churches were growing now only 50% of churches are in decline and around 36% of churches are growing. However, I take the Rev Dr David Peel’s point that using such reasoning in 1880 regarding the rise of horse drawn transport would have suggested that by 1920 London would have been buried in under a foot of horse manure![1]

It is nevertheless a serious issue but it is not the be-all-and-end-all we may still remain confident in God who has sustained his church for the past two thousand years. It also cannot be denied that Christianity worldwide is growing phenomenally. However, these facts should give us cause for some serious reflection on our life and witness:

I am concerned that we have in the words of Richard Church, ‘no theology of conversion’. This is not a plea for an evangelical interpretation of conversion. It is an observation that we find it difficult to articulate the change that occurs in a person when they accept the Father’s forgiveness, commit to following to Jesus Christ, and surrender to the power of the Holy Spirit. The gospel is not primarily about life after death it is about beginning life again today. Indeed, I believe Christian Aid got it right (in more ways than one) when they said ‘we believe in life before death’.

The URC is good at working for social action and justice but it is weak at the task of evangelism, sharing the gospel of God’s love and salvation with those yet to believe. In Christendom culture the church could assume basic knowledge of the Bible and Christian beliefs, in our post-Christendom world we can assume no such basic understanding. I do not believe that we should ignore social initiatives or direct money away from these projects into evangelistic events rather we should invest in church ventures that combine these aspects of Christian faith.

The task of evangelism must no longer be seen as the responsibility of a few within the church the ‘ecclesiola in ecclesia’ (church within a church). Evangelism must be seen as the responsibility of the whole community to make evident the reason for the hope that they have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15). This is not simply an intellectual discipline but a practical, emotional, and communal practice.

It is clear that Christian faith concerns the whole person not the autonomous individual but a person with relationships, friends and family. We must be aware that to confess faith in Jesus Christ can sometimes mean a person disassociating from existing communities and sub-cultures or being shunned by their existing network of friends. It is imperative therefore that the Christian fellowship be prepared to take responsibility for such radical change in lifestyle.[2]

In our settled so-called ‘Christendom’ we had little need for apostolic, prophetic, or evangelistic offices in the church. This is reflected in our ministerial appointments; often ministers are people called to pastoral and teaching ministries (a model we find in the pastoral epistles) rather than apostolic, prophetic or evangelistic ministries (found in the earlier epistles such as Ephesians). We need to appoint more apostles, prophets, or evangelists to restore, mentor, and encourage these ministries within our local churches.

[1] Peel D, Encountering Church (London: United Reformed Church, 2006), p.8
[2] Kallenberg BJ, Live to Tell; Evangelism for a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2002), p.32

(here's something I wrote today- let me know what you think- its not polished it is very URC but I think the insights can be applied elsewhere)