They are not ground-breaking theology or cutting-edge research. Nor are they the work of a dedicated and gifted theologian. They were written largely from the point of view of my own interests as I tried to grasp a little of the bigger picture of the challenges facing the Church of Scotland in a changing society and how engaging with newer forms of church could influence that. In other words, bear this very specific context and background in mind if you wish to shred them ‘theologically’.

MTh Research

  Dissertation - Converging Conversations
» 480.7 Kb - August 20, 2010
MTh dissertation. The need for 'intentional' dialogue if the Church of Scotland is to engage effectively with new forms of church.

  Essay - Tentative Steps towards an Emerging Kirk
» 204.1 Kb - August 20, 2010
MTh Research Essay 2 An analysis of the Church of Scotland's engagement with Emerging Church through a 2009 report from Ministries Council and Mission and Discipleship Council.

  Essay - Looking Beyond the Labels
» 206.2 Kb - August 20, 2010
MTh Research Essay 1 An investigation of some of the underlying issues behind some of the 'post-' labels commonly associated with Emerging Church.

  Essay - Unity In Diversity
» 270.5 Kb - August 20, 2010
Mth Research Essay - Barth Course Using the creedal church mark of 'One', this essay critiques Emerging Church from a Barthian perspective.

The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us. Thus I suggest that prophetic ministry has to do not primarily with addressing specific public crises but with addressing, in season and out of season, the dominant crisis that is enduring and resilient, of having our alternative vocation co-opted and domesticated.

The italics are Brueggemann’s and state the hypothesis for  the book. The extract, I believe, succinctly states the mission and problem for the church. The church needs to be counter-cultural. And that doesn’t mean that it decries culture, rather it should always be asking if this is the ‘best’ we can achieve. And by ‘best’, I would suggest that that means being more ‘Christ-like’; being fully human and fully spiritual creatures, living life in its fullest measure without fear of discrimination, oppression and injustice.

But the extract also highlights the biggest danger the church faces – becoming ‘co-opted and domesticated’. (The phrase, “Aslan is not a tame lion” has just sprung to mind). My biggest fear of Emerging Church is that the Christian distinctives get subsumed by a desire to be ‘relevant’ – faith and worship are co-opted to suit a context, rather than that happening the other way round. Domestication comes when the church is no longer proactive but reactive and is ‘used’ to provide social services or a place where religious-types can go on a Sunday morning. Or perhaps domestication has come through the church becoming a useful branch of Historic Scotland responsible for the upkeep of a bunch of old buildings. I’m sure there are many ways in which we have become ‘co-opted and domesticated’.

How easy is it though to rediscover our revolutionary voice?

The title, ‘Why the Scots don’t vote Tory’, caught my eye and I watched it on catchup. It wasn’t terribly informative and only hinted at some of the answers. Nevertheless, one comment caught my attention. One lady, a mother of seven (iirc), living in one of the wealthier areas of Glasgow, admitted that her family would probably be better off under Tory government, but felt that voters also had a moral obligation to consider the effect of their vote on others. The implication, of course, being that a Tory government would have the interests of only a small(er) part of society in mind. Sally Magnusson, the presenter, did venture the opinion that the apparent Tory focus on individual achievement and advancement grated on the Scots’ sense of community and fairness. I suspect this would have been a particularly fruitful line of enquiry, but it wasn’t really followed up.

Now, I’m in no particular position to argue the merits of one party over another in terms of their community focus or their social responsibility. Labour’s track record on this hasn’t exactly been exemplary either. Nor would I care to argue that this is a uniquely Scottish phenomenon. I’m sure our English, Welsh and Irish neighbours can be every bit as community-minded, just as Scots can be just as self-centred as anyone else. But it did get me thinking about something else I read recently about Emerging Church and its criticism of the established (or inherited) church.

One of the key criticisms of the established church (by EC) is that it is locked into, and colludes with, a ‘modern’ worldview. (As an aside, it can be argued that EC is just as guilty of this with respect to a postmodern worldview.) But, for the established church, what this means is that it is locked into a way of thinking that it sees as the correct way, yet is no longer how many people think – especially those in the younger generations. In particular, as it relates to this blog entry, established church is seen to be too individualistic – too much emphasis on a ‘personal faith’ in a ‘personal saviour’. (And, as another aside, in my opinion, this is a crucial area where EC falls into the very same trap – it risks ‘over-contextualising’ to the point where, although it may not be individuals, it can be a very small and exclusive clique.)

It’s an interesting question to ask though whether this has been the natural drift of the church or whether it has been pushed into this corner by the changing mindset of society. But therein lies the problem, as I see it, for the church. I think that the criticism that the established church has, generally speaking, colluded with society is a fair one. It’s almost as though, in its humility, the church hasn’t wanted to rock the boat and upset people by being too ‘in their face’ or too outspoken. It has listened to and agreed with the secular voices which have told it that religion and faith is a personal thing and not for the public arena.

This year there are celebrations marking the 450th anniversary of the Scottish Reformation – an event steeped in social change, especially education (ironically individual). The Church of Scotland has had, and continues to have, a strong tradition of supporting social projects, both at home and overseas. That ‘community’ ethic, strong moral responsibility and social justice, still runs deep within the Scottish psyche, I believe. But it risks being subsumed and diluted as our society expands to include those from other parts who have chosen to make Scotland their home. Don’t misunderstand me though. I’m not saying that welcoming others into Scottish society is a bad thing, rather that it places a greater responsibility on the church in Scotland to be the voice of social concern and community focus.

At the moment I think it still listens too much to the voices which tell us that religion is a private matter. I think a parallel can be drawn with the side-lining of the Tories in Scotland (assuming the ‘individualist’ criticism is valid) and the increasing irrelevance of the church in Scotland. I also think it’s one of the dangers of jumping on the EC bandwagon – we risk becoming even more focussed on pleasing individuals rather than growing in relevance to society as a whole. I think that if the church were to find its prophetic voice again (and some have) then it would become more relevant. And that doesn’t simply mean being critical, but rather, showing the way forward (it’s not like we don’t have a good example to follow). And I also believe that if the church does that then there will also be pressure on the political parties to be more serious about social justice and community support and be less about selfish gain. Maybe even the Tories would be popular again.

Politics and religion can make for an awkward mix, but churches cannot disconnect from political life, for that would be a disconnection from public life. I don’t generally blog about politics, but maybe when I blog about faith and church and theology the politics is in there anyway.

It has also been prompted by a couple of questions from Scott, and in particular his most recent question about some of the underlying assumptions we make when ‘doing mission’. So, in no particular order, some thoughts on theology (and more to follow in subsequent posts).

In or out? The fundamental premise of traditional church seems to be similar to one of the old lottery slogans – “You have to be in it to win it.”  Simplistically put, salvation comes through acknowledging Jesus as Lord and coming to church. That’s deliberately over-simplistic but I believe it captures much of the essence of where traditional church seems to be at the moment. Even more mission-minded churches, with great outreach programmes, still seem to have ‘come and join us’ as the underlying motive. Underlying this emphasis is the RC doctrine of there being no salvation apart from the church. Protestant doctrine nuances this somewhat but still has a focus on being ‘called into community’. Evangelical emphasis is much more biased towards individualism (consider how many phrases used by evangelicals are about ‘personal saviour’ or individuals coming to a ‘saving faith’) but still with the expectation that once someone has made that ‘personal decision for Christ’, they will readily come to church.

EC attempts to turn this on its head somewhat. Its stated aim is to take the sacred into the secular – to transform the secular by being the body of Christ in the world. Slogans like, “find where God is at work and join in,” are often bandied around as being the ‘real’ missional approach. EC is very much about an integrated faith and life and so one’s face suffuses every aspect of our interaction with our secular surroundings. Actually, to be entirely fair to EC, this distinction between the sacred and the secular is seen by EC as a false one. If we speak of God being active in the world, how can we speak of it as being secular? And so, for that reason, to behave one way when in church and to behave differently in society is to display a lack of integrity.

Mission, therefore, is not about evangelising to bring people in, but to participate in the missio Dei and bring about something of the Kingdom here and now, albeit in a provisional form. The extreme of this view gets me on my eschatological hobby-horse though. I find that (despite the popularity of NT Wright within EC theological circles) EC theology falls to far into the ‘realised eschatology’ camp. It’s not necessarily a bad place to be but I think it leads to a works-based (or perhaps works-biased)  soteriology. Maybe this isn’t an entirely fair criticism, but I sense that it shifts in that direction.

Which links me in to another issue associated with the missional style EC adopts. Picking up on the soteriology issue, it begs the question about the ‘Great Commission’ laid upon Christians. Is ‘making disciples’ a matter of showing people that the ‘good work’ they are doing is really God’s work and getting them to acknowledge that and keep working (this is the works-based soteriology coming through)? Because it seems to me that if we acknowledge that God is at work in the world, and that all good works ultimately flow from Him, then there is actually little or no imperative for evangelism. I suppose that one could argue that by bringing a person to faith, their works can become even more effective as they understand their importance and their focus. It means that the works that they do which are less God-oriented can be revised to make them so.

There is, of course, all manner of middle ground, nuanced by other theological suppositions, but it seems that these are some of the theological issues which traditional church needs to wrestle with if it is to co-exist happily with EC. I think that part of the reason that there is suspicion on both sides is that the focus has largely been upon the ‘visible’ – the way each ‘do’ church. I’m not sure that the underlying theological reasons for each side’s has been made obvious. On the part of established church it has often just been assumed that people understand why things are done the way they are done and there is little questioning of it. For EC, their problem is that the underlying theological justifications haven’t really been made voiced effectively. Too much of it has been reaction to established church. There are not too many works enunciating and evaluating the underlying theology of EC from the point of view of what EC does (rather than why they don’t do what established church does).

Someone asked me recently what my position was on EC and I had to answer that I am a ‘supportive sceptic’. I suppose that until I become convinced that the same theological rigour has been applied to EC as the established church has had to deal with (and I might not necessarily agree with some of the positions found in the established church, but at least I understand why they hold them) then I will always be sceptical of EC practices. At the moment I’m simply not convinced that the cry of holistic/integrated faith and life rings true. Sometimes I wonder if it’s just an excuse for not getting out of bed on a Sunday morning.

And, unfortunately, it’s the Church of Scotland’s law and structures that are often the problem. That’s not to suggest that there aren’t people who are trying, often creatively, to provide solutions, but there was still an underlying sense of not taking Emerging Church seriously. If I may parody it somewhat, it seemed that there was a willingness to set up a working party to look at the questions that would need to be addressed by a committee who could produce a report to create a task force who would consult widely to produce a report that could go to a council and be presented to GA for consideration by presbyteries to ascertain whether there was support for changes to develop a new style of ministry.

Meanwhile community projects are being slapped on the wrist for overstepping parish boundaries or are unable to share the sacraments because their eminently qualified leader doesn’t have the ‘right sort’ of theology degree and isn’t ordained. There was much talk about training and the need for a new focus on missional skills for ordained ministries. But I can’t help but feel that a more open approach to development of lay leaders or the already qualified members needs a better look at. Why do we allow someone to ‘preach and teach’ at a youth club yet become very cagey when they might do it from the pulpit, as it were? There was also talk of a more modular approach to training, building on existing skills. So how about an approved ‘sacramental theology’ bolt-on to make sure it’s all done above board and with theological rigour and that makes sure the appropriate box is ticked for church law? And maybe it’s time to get over the suspicion and angst about it that has persisted for several hundred years since the Reformation.

So, what’s the solution? A presbyterian church with flexible structures, “boundary blindness” (thanks to Peter Neilson for that one) when it comes to parishes and a real commitment to training its people to become the body of Christ in the community. And maybe a church that relaxes its ecclesiology and grasps more of the kingdom instead. Shouldn’t be too tall an order. Maybe a report to GA is called for.

As I read it I was reminded of an observation from Barth which I think I’ve previously mentioned – that the church has always been a minority. The implication is that it always will be, and that that’s no bad thing. In the light of Pagitt’s comments it even makes sense (to me anyway). It opens up the whole question of the purpose of the church. In a sense it only ever needs to be a minority if it sees its purpose as finding where God is at work and joining in. ‘Church’ then becomes the place where church members are spiritually renewed and sustained and sent out to mission again. Their mission purpose is to make disciples of all nations. But does that need to mean growing a church congregation? OK, so it raises issues of ‘Christian imperialism’ when we count those who are working for ‘the good’ to be disciples, but then the issue is about the kingdom, and not the church. It also ‘meets the requirement’ for the church to be ‘in the world, but not of it’. And it has a somewhat liberal, vaguely universalist, soteriology. But that’s just theology and a few proof texts will soon take care of that.

But it also throws into question the whole issue of the EC movement. Is it actually necessary to establish churches to do mission work? The answer must be, “no,” but what then is EC for? It seems to me that EC is, in a sense, a by-product of missional work. Or, at least, it can be. It can also be a project in and of itself. Context is the key, I suppose.

It also raises some interesting questions for the Church of Scotland, particularly at this cash-strapped time and as it considers its ability to meet its Third Article and be a presence in every part of Scotland. Maybe by trying to be ‘church’ everywhere it will never succeed; but as the missional bringer of the kingdom, that may be a different story. A lot of joined-up thinking required I think.

My last essay (from the Barth class) ended up being about ‘community’. Barth is very big on a Christian being called into a community. He pretty much says we can’t be Christians on our own. But more than that he has much to say about the fractured community that is the church catholic. The issue explored in the essay was whether Emerging Church adds to the fractured-ness or whether it exists within the church in the broad sense.

Anyway, the point was that it headed in a direction which I hadn’t really intended taking (I was originally more interested in the actual ‘theology’ employed by EC) and so it left me with a bit of a dilemma. Did I continue looking at the broad picture of EC or focus in on their theology. Given that defining Emerging Church is a bit like trying to nail jelly to a wall, the thought of trying to get to grips with theological issues was not a particularly enthralling one.

So I was kind of stuck on which direction to go – until I had a chat with my supervisor, that is. I was keen to keep my interests in a local context and not get dragged too much into the US-centric view of EC, so the plan is now as follows:

Book review: Emerging Churches, Gibbs & Bolger. This gives a good overview of what EC is in the US and UK. Lots of background material.

Essay 2: Having looked at one of the creedal marks of church (‘one’) in the first essay, I wanted to look at ‘holy’ in my next essay. Holy means ‘distinctiveness’ and in the church context is about the distinction between the sacred and the profane. In the context of EC, it raises questions about whether EC simply regurgitates popular culture or whether it ‘sacrilises’ it somehow.

Essay 3: The Church of Scotland have been keen to gather momentum in getting to grips with EC, particularly the idea of ‘mixed economy’ church as expressed in Fresh Expressions. But not all expressions of EC sit comfortably within the CofS, especially its presbyterianism. Many ECs seem to veer heavily towards the congregational model or even attempt to remain ‘structureless’. This essay looks at which expressions of EC fit within the CofS polity.

Dissertation: Pick an EC project currently underway within the CofS and examine its ‘mission statement’ or project proposal in light of the creedal marks of ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic’ church. (If nothing else, it gives me a clear structural  outline for the work.) To that end I also have a meeting with the CofS EC co-ordinator. Hopefully I will be able to get pointed to a usable project.

Just got to sit down and write all that now.

I’ve been looking at Fresh Expressions – the Church of England/Methodist project into finding, strangely enough, fresh ways for people to express or explore their faith. In many respects it’s the background to much of what is happening within the Church of Scotland. What’s been interesting is that Emerging Church in its guises as ‘alternative worship’ or ‘seeker-sensitive’ or whatever other label one might care to apply is actually a subset of the overall strategy. By broadening out what ‘church’ is, in the sense of how to be a worshipping community, then the unity of the church is maintained. However, this opening out and creating space within the structure of ‘organised religion’ is not universally accepted as ‘a good thing’. How can one be a radical voice or a ‘fresh expression’ when one is still part of the ‘established’ church? The very fact that a group is still within the structures of the ‘parent’ denomination means that it can only ever be emerging and never really emerge.

In the book Evaluating Fresh Expressions, an article by Dr Peter Rollins, co-ordinator of the emerging church movement Ikon in Belfast, is pretty hard-hitting when it comes to this subject. He questions whether maintaining the close connection with the structures of ‘traditional’ church allows an emergent expression of church to find its real voice. He goes so far as to suggest that maintaining such a connection is a “restriction, misrepresentation and even perversion of the very message that they offer to both those outside and those within the church” (p84).

The challenge of such a view (and this is the point of the essay) is that we then have to look beyond our own denomination and tradition and consider what it means to be part of the ‘church catholic’. Barth offers a similar challenge. Church, he suggests, is, at its most basic, a statement of faith, derived from the creedal statement – “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” As such, it is not a matter of ‘knowing’ it is right, wrong or whatever, but believing that the church, the body of Christ, simply ‘is’. For Barth, that ‘being’ is marked by the work of the Spirit within and through the church. That calls into question our ideas of the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways of ‘doing’ church. But it also continues to call into question what it means to be church and what the purpose of church is. Barth is still, in a sense, tied to the institution of church. This, in large part, is to avoid the dangers of 0f individualistic experientialism; a danger I think some expressions of Emerging Church are at risk of slipping into. That, of course raises the question of whether it is indeed a danger. Barth’s big argument here is that we are called as a saved people, not as individuals as such. It was the nation of Israel God established, not a disparate group of individuals. But maybe that’s a subject for another essay.

In the meantime, when we consider/believe we are ‘one church’, how far are we prepared to go to count other expressions of church as still part of the body of Christ and therefore part of our Christian fellowship?

The original plan was to follow up on the other areas of eschatology that I hadn’t done for my honours dissertation. That morphed slightly into seeing how the language of inaugurated eschatology might engage with Emerging Church (which seems, to me, to have a very strong ‘realised eschatology’ outlook). However that may have been fine for the dissertation but I was struggling to pull the three 5k-word essays out of the mire without them impinging too much on the main dissertation.

Then along came Barth and one of the 5k-word essays was sorted. Still keeping Emerging Church in the frame, I will be looking at ‘community’. This seems to be a major ‘thing’ with Emerging Church movements, so it seems reasonable to look at it and critique it using Barth. Not that Barth is necessarily the best theologian with which to engage EC on this subject, but it does allow me to meet the assessment criteria for the course and is vaguely relevant to the overall research project.

But what of the other two 5k-word essays? Well, a cunning plan ‘emerged’ during today’s discussion. I hope to audit the Scottish Theology course next semester and in the discussion today it was suggested that looking at, if possible, the traditional Scottish slant on Hell and Judgement would tie in nicely with the eschatology part of the research, but also provide a springboard to consider the direction that Scottish expressions of EC are taking on this subject. Are they truly emerging or starting from an entirely new perspective? How much is EC taking from its traditional roots? And so on. So, there’s essay number 2.

Essay 3 is the one that might be the most fascinating. Again, in discussion, I was asked what was actually happening in EC movements in Scotland and I had to confess to being aware of only a limited amount of work in the area – not that there isn’t a lot happening, just that my exposure to it has been limited. So it was suggested that the third assignment could be a quantative research project – actually find out who’s doing what and why. That’s a potentially huge amount of work, so it seemed logical to narrow the field somewhat and look particularly at what the Church of Scotland is doing. That might seem unnecessarily limiting, but I do have to keep it very manageable. That said, a lot of the gathered data could be used for the main dissertation, if I’m canny enough.

Which just leaves the main dissertation. There’s no reason why that can’t continue to be within the general remit of the original proposal, but I suspect that it also has a few more iterations to go through yet before the core of it emerges. It may well end up going down a very different path, but then isn’t that the whole purpose of research?