| |
WHAT KIND
OF CHURCH? |
| |
Paper for E.F.A.C. Conference 2001 by Olivia Moffat |
| |
'"I am the man who with the utmost
daring discovered what had been discovered before,"
G.K. Chesterton declared triumphantly. "I did try to
found a heresy of my own, and when I had put the last
touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
Guided in part by Chesterton, I landed in a similar place
after a circuitous journey.' - Phillip Yancey |
| |
Introduction, Explanation and Disclaimer |
| |
Like many Church planters and especially my
friends who are involved in similar congregations to
Solace, we constantly find ourselves solving problems.
Problems which require theological savvy, philosophical
clarity, sociological aptitude and godly behaviour. We
freely confess the task to be beyond us, that we are
working on last week's problems rather than today's and
that sign posts and guides are few and far between.
Thankfully we gratefully acknowledge the amazing presence
of God weaving a golden thread throughout the mess. |
| |
Solace is a congregation, one of 6 at St
Hilary's - an Anglican Church in an upper middle class
suburb of Melbourne. It is a Church with a happy history,
a place where experiments can be tried and a place which
has benefited gratefully from the best that
evangelicalism has to offer. (Both the academic hallmarks
of British evangelicalism and the pragmatic approach of
the Americans.) Solace is 18 months old and began during
a time of hand over from a senior pastor of 20+ years
ministry to a new person. It began during a shift from
seeing the Church as one congregation with many services
to one Church with a family of congregations. (That is,
an increase in congregational focus, but with the aim to
centralise key aspects of our life together.) With
increased growth we were (and still are) reshaping how we
meet and minister, trying out new models, mainly taking
on ideas from the large American Churches. I (Olivia
Moffatt) am paid as a minister to Solace which takes up
about 70% of my time, I am also a senior staff member
contributing to the general life and governance of St
Hilary's. All these factors shape Solace and the way in
which we express the theories and ideas from which we
draw. (These ideas have been called postmodern,
post-evangelical, postChristendom, and alternative
worship.) |
| |
I enjoy robust discussions with the staff of St
Hilary's and am especially grateful for the support and
accountability which Paul Perini our senior minister
gives me. I am part of a number of thriving networks, and
especially love my friends in FORGE and Dreamland. (Alan
and Deb Hirsch, Mike Frost, David Fuller, Cath McKinney,
Ash Barker, Steve Vennour, Col Duffy, Naomi Swindon, Paul
Minty, Stephen Said and Mark Sawyers amongst others.) For
the last 2 years Barb Daws has been an intern with me at
Solace and I owe my indepth introduction to Heibert to
her work and research. She and I have spent hours
discussing this stuff. The following ideas in this paper
belong to all these people and more. |
| |
The interface between evangelicalism and the
emerging postmodern Church is quite complex. From my
perspective the following areas are vital: |
| |
What kind of Church? |
| |
What kind of contextualised methodologies? What
is the Bible and how might we use it? Who is the Holy
Spirit and how is he at work? |
| |
In this paper I address in some measure the
first two questions. I mention the latter two because
they are of vital importance as we survey the future. I
feel that 50 to 100 years from now the networks which
exist, the new denominations if you will, will align
themselves fundamentally along these issues. Often in
strong opposition to one another. I also have a |
| |
strong hunch that the emerging
ortho-doxy/praxis/cardia in which the Spirit of God is
pleased to dwell will be as radically different to
modernist evangelicalism as that is to scholastic
medievalism as that is to the faith of the ancients. My
prayer is that Solace may be one of the many vehicles
which takes God's people to that place rather than away
from it. |
| |
The first section of this paper seeks to address
the question "What kind of Church?" by engaging
with a missiological Church model created by Paul
Heibert. The second part describes the contextualised
worship which takes place at Solace's Sunday service. I
have not attempted to explain postmodernism nor show how
this contextualised worship works within the emerging
context, although I include a resource list which does
cover this topic. Thus the final page is a list of
resources which underpin Solace. |
| |
Hiebert's Set Theory |
| |
In reflecting upon the missiological task, Paul
Hiebert borrowed set theory and fuzzy logic from
mathematics to confront North American missionaries with
their imperialistic methods and colonising attitudes. For
over 20 years his preferred model (called the 'centered
set') has been the foundation for many church planters
and visionaries. In the last 4 years this model seems to
have gained wide currency and I have heard it on the lips
of those building base communities, those creating 'alternative
worship' services, those embracing post modernism and
those embracing large Church models from America such as
the cell church model or programme based theories. Not
surprisingly many of the speakers have their own version
of Hiebert's theory and everyone claims to be part of a
Christian community which operates according to his
centered set. It is vital then to outline Heibert's
theory using his own words and diagrams. The following
summary is taken from 'Anthropological
Reflections on Missiological Issues', Paul G. Hiebert
(Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1994), Chapter 6 The
Category Christian in the Mission Task. |
| |
We set up a world view using certain categories
which make sense to us, and we often think ours is the
only possible and logical view. Using set theory Hiebert
establishes four ways (not exhausting the possibilities
by any means) of establishing categories. That is - four
world views where different things are valued and
emphasised. There are two main variables: the first has
to do with the basis on which elements belong to a set.
Does something belong to a set based upon something intrinsic
to it (the essential nature of the element, what it
is i.e.. red or edible or living) or something extrinsic
(the element's relationship to something else i.e.. a
sister, a football supporter, an Internet user). The
second variable has to do with the boundaries of a set.
Is the set well formed with a sharp boundary? In
this case things clearly belong to the set or not, pears
are in, apples are out, there does not (naturally) exist
a fruit which is halfway between. The result is a clear
boundary between those inside the set and those outside.
On the other hand fuzzy sets have no sharp boundaries but
gradually move from being one type of category into
another, as day becomes night or degree of tiredness or
differing level of height. The four possible typologies
of sets emerge as follows: |
| |
|
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
Hiebert works in depth with the sets examining
what a Church, a Christian and the mission task might
look like within each world view. I will merely summarise
some characteristics of a Church in each set. Our grasp
of this theory may be limited by lack of insight into the
mathematical framework and especially Fuzzy sets and
Fuzzy logic. Further as westerners we have a deep bias
towards intrinsic well formed thinking which stunts our
appreciation of Hiebert's work. |
| |
Intrinsic well formed sets or bounded sets
translate to a Church which can clearly define those who
are 'in' and those who are 'out'.
Further it is determined by something about the people:
usually their beliefs and behaviours. These Churches
stress both teaching and right living and people who
don't measure up are either aware they are outsiders or
are pushed out of the group in implicit or explicit ways.
The boundary is firm and so members can name when they
became insiders (perhaps through praying a prayer of
conversion or baptism). Maturity is measured
intrinsically and so for example leadership codes of
behaviour would stress belief (You can not lead a small
group until you hold to a Calvinist framework of
predestination) and/or behaviour (Couples in dating
relationships are not to go away over night unchaperoned)
Without perhaps meaning to, intrinsic well formed
Churches usually are fairly uniform and homogenous. These
Churches would define theology in ultimate, universal and
unchanging (at least once they have defined them!)
propositions. These Churches would often go to great
lengths to point out where other's beliefs and behaviours
were in error. Insiders would all be treated equally,
with, for example, one vote each, outsiders would (of
course) have no power. The Church would function like a
corporation or club with its formal organisation
mechanical. There would be clearly defined roles,
explicit rules, well planned programs and management by
objectives. Evangelism would be very important as it
signifies getting people to become insiders, conversion
would be the means of entry. Once people are inside they
have arrived (in theory at least) and so these Churches
would not have an emphasis on discipling new converts,
they would enter into the main life of the Church.
Secularism is the main danger of bounded sets. |
| |
(Whilst we do not like to acknowledge it, most
western evangelical Churches fit this model best. I would
say that St Hilary's overall is a generous & healthy
example of this model, although others at St Hilary's
might disagree) |
| |
Intrinsic fuzzy sets translate to a Church which
still constitutes itself around behaviour and belief but
recognises a varying commitment. The central truths would
be universal and unchanging, but there would be great
variety amidst the members in the extent of their
affirmation of these beliefs and also in their practices.
Anything which divides up insiders and outsiders would be
discouraged, people who were 'part-Christian' would be
encouraged to participate fully in order to encourage
their growth. Thus diversity would be tolerated with
little critique, although the fully orthodox position
would be positively presented with encouragement for
people to move towards it. Some body of leadership would
be entrusted to oversee the defining and maintaining of
orthodoxy. There would be a greater willingness to enter
ecumenical debate, and these Churches would cooperate
with ones of differing views. The Church would not stress
conversion but growth or journey. Evangelism where it
happens would probably be dialogue or education rather
than proclamation and challenge. |
| |
(Solace which is a new congregation constituted
mainly be St Hilary's people probably has morphed from
being intrinsic well formed to being intrinsic fuzzy. We
still talk about God, rather than relate to God, we do
hold to a central orthodoxy but we tolerate a greater
diversity than the larger congregations at St Hilary's.) |
| |
Extrinsic well formed sets are what Hiebert
calls centered sets and he claims that these actually
reflect the Biblical teaching most accurately. A Church
reflecting this world view has Jesus as the center of the
set. People are part of the Church if they are in
relationship with Jesus - if they are facing him. This
does focus on the central image of repentance. People can
be at varying distances from the center and on a journey
(of sanctification) towards Jesus. This acknowledges that
people have vastly different starting points in the
faith, are at different stages, but have never the less
responded to Christ. (Often this distance from the center
is confused with the graduations of 'fuzziness'
- but this set is actually well formed around relating to
Jesus.) Sanctification is primarily measured in
relational terms such as submission and humility towards
God and Christians, learning and prayer. Communion with
Christ comes first. Thus focus on Christ at the centre
through praise and service. Membership is not constituted
around anything more than faith in Christ so greater
diversity of race, gender, theology, and praxis would be
tolerated. There would be messy creativity as Christ led
his Church by his Spirit and the giving of gifts. Since
the set is well formed there would be a clear distinction
between followers of Christ and others. However there
would be acknowledged differences in spiritual maturity,
as measured by degree of closeness to the center. (This
is NOT fuzziness, but a property of extrinsic-ness).
Therefore the center must be carefully defined in
spiritual and theological terms. Accountability would
differ according to closeness to the center. Issues which
Jesus is working upon with individuals would differ
according to their journey. The Church is defined by the
center and not the boundary (even though its well formed)
and so membership issues are a low priority. Conversion
is important as is the process of helping new believers
continue their journey. Idolatry (something other than
Jesus at the center) is the greatest danger of the
centered set. |
| |
Finally let us examine extrinsic fuzzy sets,
which are difficult for westerners to understand.
Membership is defined in relationship to something
(possibly a center but not necessarily), further a great
variety of commitment to that relationship is tolerated.
This creates 2 variables of movement: closeness to the
center and the above mentioned level of commitment to the
relationship. A Christian is someone with some
relationship to Christ: perhaps as Lord, or perhaps as
teacher or example. There would also be degrees of living
out that relationship. The Church would seek to
strengthen that relationship, but there would be no clear
boundaries and everyone would be welcome to everything.
Conversion is definitely seen as a process and not an
"about face". (As per the centered set.) The
tendency is towards relativism. |
| |
Evaluating Solace according to Heibert |
| |
As Barb Daws (Solace Intern) and I started to
understand the model and apply it to Solace we
experienced both great joy and frustration. We found
definite signs of centered set behaviour. We could
articulate numerous examples of people who were truly
facing Christ and walking with the Spirit towards him,
yet their lives and attitudes meant that they were
consistently pushed out of main stream congregations. We
acknowledge the reality of grace and the process of
sanctification, tolerating diversity of belief and
behaviour but encouraging people to take the next step
toward Christ. We are not relativists. Some Sunday
services, and often retreat days and small group
gatherings do center upon God and the person of Christ.
(What this means concretely will be explained below.) Our
Sunday gatherings do seek to emphasise working together
and we make the ministry of the word the starting point
of this work together. |
| |
But sadly we discovered much which was
disturbing. It is a easy for us to slip into talking
about God and examining our faith in a disconnected way.
We are suspicious of emotional manipulation and so many
main stream forms of praise and adoration are received
with cynicism. Therefore worship of the risen Christ - a
vital part of centered set community - is limited.
Further cynicism can be very destructive to healthy
faith, although it does not need to be that way. Many
people at Solace are "over-Churched" and are
very protective of their heart. They can easily fall back
on forms or words rather than yield (again) to Jesus.
Obedience is the hardest thing for many of us. This means
intrinsic categories push forward in our midst. Finally
we acknowledged that we were definitely prey to idolatry:
both idolising the community of Solace above the person
of Jesus with us as his body and also idolising me as the
leader. Since Solace has been the object of much
discussion within the St Hilary's staff team it is worth
listing some of their comments and reflections. The staff
are very positive and supportive but would list the
following concerns: Firstly is process and journey
overstated? More decisive conversion statements and calls
to obedience may be needed. That is, a firming up of the
boundary to make it 'well formed'. Secondly,
are we in danger of becoming theists? Is Christ
worshipped by name or only 'God'? That is,
what is the center? Finally, is the process of
application via discussion, ritual, prayer etc. really
more powerful and transformative than a regular diet of
exegetical preaching? If we all believe we are operating
from a centered set, then this becomes a question about
what constitutes knowing Christ? This is explored below. |
| |
Everybody's favorite theory - what is at stake
is the Gospel |
| |
As mentioned earlier it seems that Heibert's
theory has hit a chord across a wide spectrum of Church
planters. Most often it is presented with only the
bounded set and centered set as options. Usually the
bounded set is explained as the 'bad guy' and
the centered set as the ideal. Sadly this seems overly
simplistic to me and undermines much of what Heibert has
to offer. Heibert has chosen the two variables carefully
based on his understanding of various cultures. Not only
is the theory simplified but people confuse the
progression of journey (which is a property of
extrinsic-ness) with the progression of degree described
by fuzziness. Most commonly people who champion the
centered set also end up supporting fuzziness which is
NOT a property of the centered set. |
| |
But lack of understanding is important in more
ways than that. What I have come to realise in my
discussions with people is that Heibert's theory and our
engagement with it reveals our understanding of the
gospel. For example, Dave Andrew's (Christ-Anarchy) debate
with Jim Peterson (Church without Walls) shows
both a misunderstanding of the model and a difference of
opinion about the gospel. Dave's communities (Brisbane,
Waiter's Union) seem to be extrinsic fuzzy communities
yet he claims they operate according to the centered set.
He talks both about the right kind of boundary
(determined by the center) and also fuzziness. He debates
with Jim Peterson (Church without Walls) who has
made the same mistake. Jim declares that discipleship is
a centered set, but salvation is bounded. Thus mixing
together two of the options. Dave rightly shows the many
problems with this thinking, especially the fact that
salvation is the beginning of discipleship, it is a
decision to follow Jesus and that the two should not be
split apart into different 'types'. (This is
true for all of us who hold that justification by faith
and salvation are theologically a subset of the larger
category 'discipleship'.) If what Jim really
means is that discipleship is expressed in the journey
nature of the extrinsic variable of the centered set and
conversion/salvation is expressed in the well formed
nature of the centered set he would then be in agreement
with Heibert. Dave would then be debating as to what is
the nature of that conversion/salvation: how much of a
process still gives a well formed edge to a centered set.
Dave argues well for a boundary of sorts, and links it to
both Christ (the center) and the individual, so the
boundary is different for different people and depends on
the discipleship demands Jesus makes upon them. (All this
I find myself in agreement with Dave about, however he
continues to use the language of fuzzy logic. What I am
trying to say is that most people use the model and claim
that fuzzy boundaries and fuzzy logic are the way to
understand postmodern communities. This may be true,
however Heibert's centered set DOES NOT have a fuzzy
boundary but a well formed one.) |
| |
In the end the genius and confusion of Heibert's
set theory is that it reveals our understanding of the
gospel as the further exploration below shows. |
| |
Further reflection highlights 5 keys |
| |
I've enjoyed hours of debate using Heibert's
model, both with groups within Solace and the networks to
which I belong. Hiebert's model highlights important
Biblical concerns and but also has some blind spots. It
is unrealistic to expect a model to express the
profundity and multiplexy of the Bible and so these 5
keys which have focused my thinking arise from the model
and move beyond it. |
| |
1. Orientation. A clear outworking of the gospel
of grace and discipleship is captured when Heibert makes
repentance a key aspect of extrinsic relationship. This
is expressed by the way in which someone is facing - are
they facing toward the center or away in the way they
live? The first moment of repentance or the 10th year of
submission as a disciple of Jesus does not later our
fundamental status in the Church. However we often want
to quantify this, and understand how it is expressed.
This can be problematic, especially when that is measured
in terms of belief and behaviour. (Before we even know it
we have a cosy little homogenous bounded set.) Yet, we
all acknowledge that it has to show up in transformed
hearts, minds and lives. We emphasis the battle for the
heart and mind when we gather and attempt small actions
together (such as cleaning up a billabong and marching
for reconciliation as our Sunday gathering.) We attempt
to personalise and individualise the process and so
establish ways of (re) turning to Christ and of taking
steps forward, but not universalising what those steps
may be. Further leadership codes or even perimeter codes
(i.e.. what is really beyond the pale and must be
expelled) which we may articulate in the future would
seek to capture this rather than articulate a base line
measure of behaviour and belief. Not because we don't
care about holiness and orthodoxy but because if you
"Get the center right, the circumference takes care
of itself." (Stanley Jones as quoted in Christi-Anarchy
by Dave Andrews) That way we institutionalise the
heart of the gospel, and the Spirit of Christ at work in
us, rather than one possible snapshot of the outcome of
that work. I believe that this means continued messiness
and creativity and also a decentralised growth and
control process. Given how tiring and demanding this can
be for leaders its easy to see why we inadvertently
gravitate towards bounded sets. |
| |
2. Journey. Not only is the radical acceptance
of grace clearly articulated in the centered set, so is
the process of sanctification. The journey towards the
center is fundamentally part of the category 'extrinsic'.
The constant tension of the 'now and the not
yet' is a difficult place to live and it is easy to fall
prey to defeatism or triumphalism. Few of us manage to
enjoy the incomparable gift of a full and free pardon in
the face of our constant sin. Few of us manage to remain
humble and dependent on that transforming grace when we
experience victory over struggle. We struggle to
institutionalise journey. Some ways mentioned above in
orientation apply here. I believe theologically that in
this life 'the process is the goal'. We are
the body of Christ, we are called to be the body of
Christ to one another and the world and we are becoming
the body of Christ. We won't be the perfect and spotless
bride until the return of Christ, yet we already are, and
we are becoming more so everyday. The way we gather, live
and love expresses what is already true and makes it more
true and thus we go forward, but we are never at the
destination. It is both a corporate and individual
process. To enable an ever changing group to remain in
the tension this creates I believe we need a profound
understanding of the human condition and things like
cognitive dissonance. We have a saying at Solace:
"Mind the Gap" (echoes of the London
underground.) This is the gap between who we are and who
we are in Christ, this is also the gap between what we
say we believe and what our lives show about what we
really believe. We make it explicit, name it and teach
that this is yet another gap which the death of Christ
overcomes. ( Interestingly Hugh Mackay's latest analysis
of the Australian mood includes the articulation of this
gap between how we live and how we'd like to live in
terms of meaning and values.) We believe "Mind the
Gap!" Is a very important statement in the face of
cognitive dissonance. "According to cognitive
dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to
seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs,
opinions). When there is an inconsistency between
attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must
change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a
discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most
likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the
behavior." (visit http://www.jzwu.edu/%7Etip/festinge.html. If you can't manage
congregational cognitive dissonance then the journey
ends. Or in other words, if you can't make sense of
failure and imperfection and show how God is with us in
it all, then the journey towards the perfect becomes
impossible. |
| |
3. Boundary. What kind of boundary (if any)
should exist around the people of God? The bible seems to
speak in both bounded and fuzzy terms. For example the
stark contrast of moving out of darkness into light,
being dead but now alive and so on, speak of radical
category changes - at least from God's perspective. Yet,
the lives of the people of God and God's interactions
with them are much more fuzzy. This issue of boundaries
is an area of major discussion between those of us who
are using Hiebert's model. Dave Andrews in Christi-Anarchy
argues convincingly against Jim Peterson (Church
without Walls) who says that 'discipleship
is a centered set, but salvation is a bounded set'. (part
of the problem here is that both Andrews and Peterson
lose sight of the fact that the centered set is
well-formed, not fuzzy anyway.) Dave especially reminds
us that salvation is not a separate thing to salvation
which comes prior, but rather depends on discipleship
which is choosing to follow Jesus. (Not everybody who
calls me 'Lord'.....) Dave also argues well
that any 'boundary' is moveable - its not only
by praying a pray during a rally that we are converted,
its not only through intellectual argument, there are
different paths for different people, each as unique as
Jesus' encounters with the people of Palestine. However
this does not quell discussion. Probably one of the most
contentious areas between myself and the other staff at
St Hilary's has been who comes to Solace and how much I
let them participate. Why do I let some one in a
permanent de facto relationship help lead the singing?
(In other services they would not be fulfilling the
leadership code and hence ineligible.) Why do I let
people who say they are not Christian speak into the
microphone during our open discussions? The stated and
unstated vibe is that these people are welcome to look on
and explore but not participate nor consider themselves
members since their beliefs and behaviours are not up to
scratch. When is this valid? At the conference I'll
compare three different Christian communities who are all
being guided by Heibert's theory and contrast their
differing conclusions on this point. |
| |
4. Center. A deep understanding of Heibert's
theory means that we must be very clear about what is at
the center of our set and how that is expressed in our
midst, since it drives everything. Generally we talk of
Christ being the center and relationship to Christ
characterising members. Dave Andrews summarises it in the
following words. "Whereas Christianity defines faith
in Christ in terms of boundaries of belief or behaviour
that need to be defended, Christi-Anarchy defines faith
in Christ in terms of a choice to overcome any boundary
of belief or behaviour that might prevent us from moving
towards the free, beautiful, compassionate Spirit of
Christ, which we have made the centre of our lives. In
Christianity the core issue of faith is defending the
propositions about Christ - which define the set. In
Christi-Anarchy the core issue of faith is affirming the
centre of the set - the person of Christ - who defines
the set." (from Zadok Perspectives no 66,
autumn 2000) But the million dollar question is
"what does that mean in practice??" A
conservative Evangelical will say that that is exactly
what happens when the word is preached, an Anglo-Catholic
will declare that Holy Communion is the heart of such
transformative work, Dave Andrews and those like him will
see it most in acts of social justice and mission, a
Pentecostal will define it experientially and
supernaturally. This means two things, firstly that we
can encourage centered sets which will take the best from
all kinds of traditions and look radically different to
one another and secondly that we must work hard for the
essence of Heibert's theory to have a cutting edge rather
than being a nice sentiment. |
| |
Heibert works against this latter issue by
defining the center as 'first, the person of
Christ and second, our corporate theological and
behavioural understanding of his teaching', further he
endorses the 'leadership of spiritually mature
persons' and holding them accountable in their high
office. Many cite this as Heibert having a bounded set of
leadership based on beliefs and behaviours inside the
centered set, thus undermining what he is trying to
establish. Others see this as an incarnational
establishment of the center, which is vital to make the
center real and give people clarity on the journey. Again
- this is a key area which I will explore in my
presentation. |
| |
As mentioned in the evaluation of Solace above,
when the center of the set is not radically biblical then
some measure of idolatry is taking place. Given that the
center is the engine room then it is not surprising that
it colours everything about the set. The nature of the
center will truly define the boundary and determine
whether we are the healthy people of God, or a cult (too
rigid a boundary with an intrinsic center) or a group
exploring spirituality (too fuzzy a boundary with a
relativistic center.) I also believe that the nature of
the center will define our attitude to those not in
relationship with Christ. To both those who have
deliberately turned away (such as the Pharisees or cults
which separated from the early Church) and towards those
who have no idea about their relationship to Jesus. A
clear distinction is emerging between groups who claim to
be centered sets based on their actual behaviour towards
outsiders. Stephen Said (Dreamland network/ Forge mission
network) has articulated a difference between
contextualised worship and missional communities. The
former have catered for the over- and under-Churched in
their proximity by establishing gatherings which
contextually work in a postmodern environment. This
caters for those groups and is possibly missional at that
level, but there is little individual or corporate action
towards outsiders. Many of the early groups to adopt
'alternative worship' or 'post-evangelical worship' or 'post-christendom
worship' or whatever you want to call it, may have this
flavour. Solace currently has this hallmark. It happens
because of how we understand Christ and what it means to
be his body. Thus is harks back to the center. Missional
communities are centered towards Christ in a way which
makes Jesus passion for the lost live in their midst and
so they have an outwards orientation. Usually these
communities are much smaller and much more well formed,
they are harder to find, people enter them to either join
the mission (i.e. serving food to the homeless) or
through direct people relationship. The nature of the
gatherings works against Church tourists and consumer
oriented people. Thus the center keeps the set well
formed. Interestingly some of the people who are most
strongly against boundaries, belong to small communities
with very well formed edges. |
| |
5. Community. Heibert's model suffers from his
western individualism on this point. His diagram and
description focus on individuals who have made a decision
to follow Christ. They come together because they are on
about the same thing. I think the New Testament has a
much stronger view of community than this. As Gordon Fee
says 'Paul would have no understanding of
being able to be a Christian apart from belonging to a
Church.' (God's Empowering Presence & Paul, the
Spirit and People of God. ) Just as salvation is a
category of discipleship, relationship to Christ can only
be truly expressed by joining his body. We often speak of
an individual having a vertical relationship with God and
a horizontal relationship with people (believers and
others) - this seems very sub-biblical to me. Surely a
more accurate picture is both of us in Christ, and thus
inside God (Thanks Charles Sherlock and Torrance et al)
AND all of us in the Spirit engaging with God through one
another, being ministered to by God through one another
and ministering God to others. Both supernaturally and in
mundane ways. Not only do we over-individualise our
relationship with God, emphasising time alone with God as
where the really spiritual stuff happens. (Can you find
that emphasis in the Bible - no!) Even that kind of
prayer which is a valid but minor part of our life has
been taught to us by somebody. The following diagrams
explain what I mean: |
| |
 |
This diagram shows the simplistic idea of me
relating to God and to others in a direct and separate
way. |
| |
|
| |
 |
This
diagram shows God's presence (the circle) with us (the
squares) as well as the fact that God is a ministering
community |
| |
|
| |
 |
This
diagram shows how heaven and earth met in the person of
the incarnate Christ and the final diagram shows how the
Church today ministers God to one another and is in God
with the Holy Spirit as the touchstone. |
| |
|
| |
The reality of God at work in us and through us
then raises interesting issues of structure and form. How
do we constitute the Christian community to enable this
supernatural work? Again, as westerners we want strong
structure, edges, borders and boundaries. We love
rosters, programmes and hierarchies. Cell-based Churches
(amongst others) give everybody a place and role by
asking them to join a small group. Those not in small
groups are not part of the Church, groups have coaches,
and coaches are co-ordinated by the minister. |
| |
|
| |
 |
This
diagram fits the cell based Church as neatly as it fitted
the division of the Roman army. |
| |
|
| |
There is no doubt that God is present in
Churches which structure themselves this way, however it
may be prey to the weaknesses of the bounded set. What
other ways of giving groups purpose and direction exist?
What non-business and non-military paradigms might we
use? (However I note with irony that the world-wide web
was a military invention!) Thanks to the discovery
channel I've enjoyed thinking about the way in which
migrating birds exist in community. This seems to
resonate both with our postmodern context and the
centered set. A simple computer model was able to exactly
imitate migrating birds by running a programme using the
following variables: |
| |
1. Stay close together (invest in the lives of
one another in time, proximity etc.) |
| |
2. All have the same goal (clarify the center,
and help everyone to live in relationship towards it) |
| |
3. Concentrate only on those few next to you
(relate deeply with a few, each person's network is
unique.) |
| |
4. When danger strikes move immediately away
from it and when safe return to the other rules. |
| |
5. Rotate the leadership (stop burn out, believe
in the collective Holy Spirit process, de-guruise.) |
| |
|
| |
 |
This
diagram shows a flock of birds travelling to a common
goal where each has a different primary community within
the main group. |
| |
|
| |
At the conference I will explain how we hope to
correct some of the problems emerging from Solace and
work with the above understanding of community drawing on
ancient wisdom in a postmodern way! . |
| |
So much for the theory - what is a Sunday at
Solace actually like? |
| |
The following pages are a mixture of documents
prepared for other events. Hopefully they will give you
some flavour of our Sunday gathering (which is of course
only one part of our life together.) |
| |
The first couple of pages give some
illustrations to highlight the paradigm shift from
modernist to postmodern contextualised worship. |
| |
Then there is an outline of two areas of our
time together: prayer and the ministry of the word. (We
tend to do all the standard Churchy things: sacraments,
praise and adoration, Bible, prayer, community time, but
we do them differently and we don't do them all every
week and we especially don't do things in the same
pattern week after week.) |
| |
After that some particular Sunday services have
been written up and evaluated. |
| |
Background Ideas to help understand some
principles of Solace |
| |
Examples from 21st Century life |
| |
I love Jeffery Smart's art. He paints
everyday images and helps us to see the sacred, to find
meaning and hope and to connect out lives to a larger
metaphysical reality. Michelangelo, like all the great
masters, did it so well, but after all that was 500 years
ago. Smart says, "If Michelangelo were alive today
he would be painting television satellites'. |
| |
Sunday morning feels like a painting from the
Baroque, the rest of my week looks like Smart's world.
That's got to change. Can't we find the sacred through
the everyday ways we live? Does God only show up when we
gather in ways alien to our everyday life? Surely
incarnational theology that is at the heart of our faith
can't allow such a state of affairs to continue. |
| |
At Solace we often sit around tables, to talk,
to share morning tea - all things we do in cafes during
the week. At Solace we are trying to be formed by
discussion, and actions (writing, painting, making
things, rituals, drama, and simulation) - because so few
of us learn by being talked at. We are putting into
practice contemporary learning theory. We take seriously
the different ways people learn - because we really want
them to be transformed. We want people to put into
practice what they know rather than know so much more
than they live out. We spend less time teaching new stuff
and more time learning to live out the one or two things
that we know. Jesus was so at home in his culture, it's
sad that his followers are so often dislocated from
theirs. |
| |
Chunky Moves Dance Company put on a show in
Revolver nightclub in 1999. They broke down the
traditional stage/audience divide. As trained
professionals they performed, but in the midst of other
dancers. The performance was open ended and differed each
night according to the involvement of the 'clubbers'.
This interactive show speaks volumes to me as a model for
the Church that is a body that Christ by his Spirit is
leading. It seems more biblical than the stage show or
the lecture based approaches which so many of our
gatherings imitate. |
| |
At Solace we break down the
minister/congregation divide as much as we can. Yes! We
have trained, mature and gifted Christians who offer and
lead the rest, but it is as one dancer dancing with
another dancer. A very traditional model of Church has
the minister doing everything to feed those in the pews.
A Church growth model has the minister's job divided up
into teams and core people coming up from the
congregation to lead. We try to abolish the concept of a
'passive' congregation all together. |
| |
To ensure real participation there must be a
feeling of safety and a lack of 5-minute 'BandAid'
answers. Everyone can speak, whether Christian or not,
whether eloquent or not. There must also be a real
openness to discussions, prayers, singing, in fact:
everything and anything, so that participation makes a
difference and individuals don't feel they are being led
down a predetermined path. |
| |
I hope that Solace is like a good game of Hacky
Sack. People join the circle and feel uncomfortable at
first. No one tells them the 'rules', but when
they make a mistake the sack is thrown at them. So there
are rules and norms and they learn them by playing. If
feels odd to use your feet and other limbs in a way we
have never been taught before, but for those who have
been brought up on it, it's as natural and comfortable as
the way we play footy. Churched people have to learn a
new way, and its uncomfortable and some of them think its
silly and pointless. The aim of Hacky Sack is 'The
Hack' - when everyone in the circle has participated at
least once. Superstars are not part of this game, except
in so far as they enable others. Again, this resonates
deeply with Biblical teaching that has a genuine place
for all. |
| |
One of the rules is that you never serve the 'hacky'
to yourself. This is a simple action of community that
resonates with our teaching on giving up the self. A
second is that when you fail you are not to say 'sorry'.
Again, if we really believe in grace -we are a 'yes'
community of people who are set free to try and set free
from perfectionism. |
| |
Snowboarding is not just a new sport, it
represents a paradigm shift in viewing the world. Skiers
ski around the rough, and cut over and around moguls.
Snow boarders seek out the rough and work off it. They
chop up the slopes annoying the skiers and making
horrendous noises as they cut against the slopes, drifts
and moguls. For Rushkoff this expresses the worldview of
the children of chaos. (See his book of that name, esp.
page 30ff.) Change is the only constant, chaos is
everywhere, and life is NOT like the groomed slopes but
like the rough areas. The one who thrives in the world of
our children is the one who 'surfs the rough'
successfully. These are the children who 'surf'
it all: the TV, the net, the streets, and the slopes.
Skateboards, keyboards, and remote controls enable them
to overcome and process the chaos. Consequently linear
process bores them and is empty, they watch four TV shows
at once, they listen to music, talk on the phone and surf
the net at once. They also exert control by chopping and
changing rather than following one narrative from start
to finish. |
| |
At Solace change is the only constant. Regular
members know that they will enter the 'rough'
but will not be pushed too far out of their comfort
zones. They also know that it will be informal,
participatory and authentic but one week it will be
around tables, another will have music and a third will
offer multiple options of working with a spiritual truth.
Whilst the way is Jesus, the step each needs to take is
different as are the things which will enable them to
take that step. We seek to provide an environment where
choice and multiple options enrich the journey. |
| |
Sunday at Solace |
| |
Few people at this Conference would have
experienced Church as we are attempting to be/do it at
Solace. A few examples of what we've done may help us
begin. |
| |
Prayer Experiences |
| |
Periodically we set up a prayer experience which
lasts for about 30 minutes. T his consists of multiple
ways of praying. Given our space limitations, the number
of people and a desire to fully include children we offer
some of the following: |
| |
* a praise tree: draw or write on a small piece
of coloured paper something to thank/praise God for and
blue tack it to the wooden pulpit. |
| |
* intercession candles : light a small taper as
you ask God for something. |
| |
* wrestle with God: pray as you hit a large
sized stress doll. (This is an inflated doll with a
weight in the bottom.) |
| |
* washing bowls: pray a prayer of cleansing or
confession a; you wash your (or someone else's) hands
and/or feet. |
| |
* brick wall: remove a brick from a wall setup
between you and a cross, pray about one thing which keeps
you from God. |
| |
* pile of bones: take a large bone (from the
butcher's) and hold it over a bucket of water. Pour water
from a jug over it and pray for the Spirit to renew one
part of your life that is dry or decd. |
| |
* play dough prayers: reflect on God as the
potter and you as the day, make one object which
represents an area of your life God is working on, pray
about it as you work. |
| |
We also encourage people to pray with one
another and use the space, objects and people in ANY way.
Music plays and people participate as they choose. We
often have images of the world, life, the news etc up on
the screen as another food point for prayer. |
| |
We recently set up another room that allowed
people to do a few of these things in silence, no music,
less movement and no children. |
| |
We have found it surprisingly easy to keep
inventing ways to aid prayer, a useful resource is
'Multi-sensory Prayer' by Sue Wallace (published by
Scripture Union) |
| |
Ministry of the Word |
| |
We are committed to having interactions with the
Biblical text (and words of great Christians as they
reflect on those texts) which lead to transformational
outcomes. Most of us are educated beyond our ability to
obey, so we are trying to slow down on our taking in of
information and increase the follow through in our lives.
We try to use the method of interaction that will best
facilitate the desired outcome. |
| |
* teaching/lecture/sermon is only used when
information needs to be imparted or we seek inspiration
from the one exhorting the many. |
| |
*lectio divina is an ancient way of praying
Scripture. Its 4 stages enable understanding, reflection,
response to God and a commitment to take that word into
my life. It takes at least 20 minutes and can be done in
small or large groups. We often have an open sharing time
afterwards. Good for passages where the meaning is clear
and individual work of commitment needs to happen. |
| |
*individual work occurs sometimes followed by
group discussion or a large plenary session. |
| |
*groups are a solution used quite often. The
groups occur mid-service or sometimes chair groupings are
set out first. Often there is no leader, but a set of
questions or instructions to follow. We always remind
people of guidelines for gracious group interaction. |
| |
*readings as we work is a concept we have taken
from the monastic life. We work on a task together:
making lunch, painting mugs whilst one or more people
read the Bible and pray. This works well for people whose
mind is stilled when they use their hands, but is
frustrating for those who are exactly the opposite. |
| |
*ritual as response. This occurs when work has
been done or the teaching is self-evident. Then we create
actions/rituals for people to confront the teaching and
bring it to bear in their lives. |
| |
*written responses are often called for. One
week we explained the structure of the lament psalms,
read some and then encouraged people to write their own.
The results were outstanding. We've also written haiku's
( 31ine, 15 syllable Japanese poems) based on the
teaching of Ephesians 4, written letters to Paul after
studying Philippians and so on. |
| |
A yet unexplored area of our learning together
involves using the major adult learning theories to
create learning methods and tools. |
| |
The following pages give an outline, explanation
and evaluation of various experiments we have tried,
these will further explain what happens at Solace. |
| |
Community Service as Worship: Cleaning up
Kew Billabong |
| |
On a cold Melbourne May day people gathered at
the corner of an oval next to the Kew Billabong to sing
and pray. Then they arose and formed workgroups mixing
the kids and the adults and for the next hour found and
retrieved all manner of nasty muddy rubbish from the
Billabong, filling a pile of rubbish bags. |
| |
Why this? |
| |
Because um the um biblical words for worship
basically mean adoration and action and um the Protestant
church is good at talking but not doing, or because we
don't see every day action as worship of God. |
| |
Preparation |
| |
A month prior to this activity, it was announced
during a service, to enable people to make arrangements. |
| |
We prepared people by teaching that action like
this is as significant an act of worship as a normal
service and that the word 'worship' means action and
adoration and often we are short on the action. |
| |
A member of our congregation was a part of the
Kew Billabong community. She sought permission for the
activity, collected the cleanup equipment and arranged
for the council to pickup the rubbish. |
| |
A facility was made available for the
congregation to repair in the unlikely event of weather
to inclement to continue |
| |
What happened |
| |
About half the congregation turned up on a
fairly wet day. Many had brought home made equipment such
as sticks with spikes to aid in the work. We spent 15
minutes in song and prayer with a guitar to accompany us
before we broke into groups to start the task. The groups
contained a balanced number of kids and adults to ensure
supervision was maintained. |
| |
At the end of an hour a large pile of rubbish
bags had been filled and many interesting conversations
had been struck up. |
| |
The majority of the group then repaired to the
house of one of the families to eat a feast and pat each
other on the back. |
| |
People said |
| |
"Today helped me meet people and feel a
part of Solace" "Great to do something not just
talk about it!" |
| |
"Good idea but not enough to do"
"Perhaps not in winter!!!" |
| |
Next time... |
| |
The next similar activity we did was to go as a
congregation to the reconciliation march in Melbourne |
| |
Lectio Divina (Divine reading) |
| |
Seated in small groups the congregation hears a
short bible passage read four times. Between each reading
there is a different communal prayer activity that helps
us to connect to God through the passage. Lectio often
takes the place which might otherwise be occupied by a
sermon. |
| |
Why this? |
| |
To find meaning in bible passages we have read
many times before To open ourselves to hear God speak to
us through the passage Because we are more likely to act
on what we have discovered in the passage than on what we
have been told about it. |
| |
Because we feel we know more than we put into
practice |
| |
A new way to approach God through Scripture from
the monastic tradition |
| |
Preparation |
| |
Select a suitable passage either from a book
being studied or relating to a current theme. The passage
should be between 5 and 10 verses long for a 20 minute
prayer time. |
| |
Print the passage as a handout for all to have
in their hands. |
| |
What happened? Introduction: |
| |
The service leader assists the congregation to
form groups of 5 - 10, and introduces the activity. They
explain why it is being done, and what will happen. They
assure the congregation that each stage will be explained
as it commences so people do not need to remember
anything |
| |
First reading: |
| |
The leader reads the passage slowly and then
invites everyone to silently read through the passage
repeatedly and call out any words or phrases that strike
them as significant. Second reading: |
| |
The leader reads the passage again slowly and
invites everyone to pray silently seeking what God might
want to say to them through the passage. |
| |
Third reading: |
| |
The leader reads the passage again slowly and
invites everyone to pray out loud regarding the passage |
| |
Fourth reading: |
| |
The leader reads the passage again and invites
everyone to pray silently about one lesson or decision
they will take away from the activity. |
| |
Optional: |
| |
It can often be beneficial after doing a Lectio
Divina, to have a time of open microphone for the
congregation members to share what happened for them
during the reading. |
| |
Next time ...Lectio Divina is a prayer activity
Solace has used several times. We will continue to use it
as a prayer and teaching exercise. |
| |
Communal Craft |
| |
One hundred people gathered to paint mugs for
weekly communal use. People worked in an attitude of busy
silence. As they worked members of the group read from
the Bible and prayed. |
| |
Why this? |
| |
Doing physical work together builds up the
community according to an ancient spiritual pattern |
| |
Involving more senses than just ears and eyes in
learning together as is consistent with current adult
learning theory |
| |
We wanted communal symbols that met a real need
and we needed mugs for our weekly continuous morning tea. |
| |
We want to learn from the rich monastic
tradition of being Christian community. |
| |
Taking the mundane and immersing it in
spirituality teaches the skill of finding God in the
everyday |
| |
Preparation |
| |
Purchase blank mugs, brushes, and ceramic paint |
| |
Book a ceramics teacher (great if you've got one
in house) Book the firing and glazing |
| |
Prepare elements for a brainstorm of Christian
symbols and concepts to stimulate ideas for designs ie.
Facilitator, whiteboard, slide of some common symbols
(bread wine lamb etc.) Layout tables in a cross shape,
distribute materials spread paper etc. |
| |
What happened? |
| |
10 mins: Brainstorm to generate a list of
symbols that represent; God, Jesus, the Spirit,
community, Solace etc. |
| |
10 mins: Tuition on ceramic painting |
| |
15 mins: Period of discussion and design on
butchers paper 15 mins: Work commences, discussions
continue |
| |
25 mins: Busy silence painting mugs overlaid
with Bible readings and prayer |
| |
10 mins: Open microphone for feedback on the
activity, how it felt, what people learned, and whether
we should do it again. |
| |
People said |
| |
"Nice to be able to meet and share with
people" |
| |
"For me the morning moved from art class to
spiritual gathering" |
| |
"Had a great time, a little longer of
'monastic silence' could have been the only improvement
I'd suggest" |
| |
"Is there music at other services?"
"I was blessed to visit Solace today" |
| |
Next time... |
| |
Next time we would allow more time for design
and production (it takes longer than you think) |
| |
This format is applicable to a wide range of
creative activities as long as there can be a level of
silence and people can hear. Next time we are preparing a
Christmas feast together. |
| |
Resources |
| |
The web is a fantastic place to get good
resources. Visit (some I have not visited in a while) |
| |
http://www.phuture.org
Http://freespace.virgin.net/adam.baxter/grace/
Http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/
http://www.gwu.edu
Http://www.navigators.org.au/POD/working/rm_pop/ar-altemative-spiritualities.html |
| |
Some good ideas for alternative worship are in: |
| |
Prodigal project Riddell, Pierce &
Kirkpatrick |
| |
Multi-Sensory Worship Sue Wallace |
| |
The city of Gold -book & CD Plass et al |
| |
Various art/books/poems Anneke Kaai |
| |
Be our Freedom Lord various |
| |
Alt. spirit @ metro. m3 Riddell |
| |
Some books which look at the emerging Church in
a postmodern context are: |
| |
Prodigal project Riddell, Pierce &
Kirkpatrick |
| |
Soul Tsunamai Sweet Post-evangelical Thomlinson
(and endless replies to him) |
| |
Church Next Gibbs |
| |
Various Darren Guder |
| |
Various Alan Roxborough |
| |
Some postmodern type books (endless really!!) |
| |
Steer clear of most conservative Christian
analysis of postmodernism, or at best read one: they are
all say the same thing!! |
| |
Try reading Copeland, Dyson and Rushkoff and do
your own analysis. |
| |
Some books/authors I love and form pillars for
Solace |
| |
N.T. Wright Jean Vanier Henri Nouwen God's
Empowering Presence Gordon Fee Richard Foster |
| |
Connecting & the Safest Place on Earth Larry
Crabb Dallas Willard |
| |
Martin Robinson |
| |
Interpreting God and the postmodern self Anthony
Thiselton |
| |
Is there meaning in this text? Kevin Vanhoozer |
| |
|
| |
Olivia Moffat is an Associate Minister at St
Hilary's Kew in Melbourne |
