The ‘blue parakeets’ of the title are those loud, squawking, irritating bits of scripture we prefer to gloss over or ignore – or, as McKnight puts it, tame and cage. They are the bits of scripture that don’t fit neatly into our own system, that challenge our preferred understanding and generally run the risk of putting holes in our favourite arguments.

The first half of the book sets out the various approaches typically taken by Bible readers and interpreters. It’s a necessarily condensed characterisation but the general thrust is that there are those (at least among those who still take scripture seriously) who stick with what the Bible says as valid for all time, those who read the Bible through the lens of their particular denominational or theological ‘creeds’ and those who seek to read scripture in a way that is sympathetic to their tradition but acknowledge the need for ‘contemporising’ their understanding. He offers further, narrower characterisations within, particularly, the first category – for example, those who read the Bible as a ‘rule book’ or those who see only a series of blessings or rewards.

It is into the last category (the contemporising one) I would place myself. And in particular, a preference for what might be described as a fairly post-modern approach. However, I don’t believe that that has to mean that the Bible can be interpreted in any way one chooses. I’ve written about this before and mentioned my appreciation for the literary approach of Stanley Fish and his ‘interpretive communities’. In essence, our interpretations of any literature will always be coloured and bounded by the community within which we find ourselves reading that work. In other words, our church upbringing is going to place the limits on our interpretation of the Bible – always allowing for a bit of pushing the boundaries of course.

Although McKnight doesn’t mention ‘interpretive communities’, that would be my understanding of what he is getting at. But the point McKnight makes takes it a stage further, into an area I hadn’t really appreciated but see as being a necessary and logical extension. Not only does our interpretive community provide the ‘boundary’ conditions, if we are honest in our intention of being part of that community, we must use that tradition actively in our engagement with scripture. But that active engagement is a two-way street. We must bring our faith tradition to bear on our Biblical interpretation, but also allow our reading of scripture to push the boundaries of that tradition. And the crucial thing is that that faith tradition is one which is also affected by and interacts with contemporary culture and society and cannot help but be shaped by it.

Sympathetic contemporising is done with regard to the faith tradition, but acknowledges its changing nature – changes that come about through its mission to remain relevant in a changing world. And the point that McKnight makes is that this ever-changing re-interpretation of God’s will is the story of the Bible. It is a book, or series of stories, which charts the continuing reinterpretation of God’s guidance and will in ever-changing circumstances. Of course there is the unchanging meta-narrative of creation, fall, exile, reconciliation but all else is contemporary re-interpretation.

The second half of the book uses the issue of women in ministry to show how some interpretations of scripture have failed to appreciate this changing interpretation and have made the Bible into a stagnant rule book. I won’t rehearse the arguments here, but I believe them to be fair.

But it leads me to the point I really wanted to make and the point which has struck me as I was reading the book.

If we accept that the Bible is the witness to a continuously-varying contextualisation and contemporising of God’s will (and I am persuaded that it is) then it places in interesting imperative on the church, its leadership and its theologians.

It seems to me that the purpose of the Bible then is not to be a source of blindly-applied rules, but rather a model for sacrilising the profane. In other words, in each and every age, we need to look at contemporary culture and work out where God is in that. The places we find God must then be celebrated, applauded and encouraged. And, of course, where we don’t find God, we seek to effect change.

But what are we looking for?

Once again I find myself in agreement with McKnight as he points out what God is ‘about’ – restoration to wholeness of individuals with themselves, with each other, with creation and, of course, with God.

And he makes one further challenging point – our model for wholeness is pre-fall (however we wish to read Genesis 1 & 2). Everything else up until Christ is a fallen model – so why are we using it? With Jesus, we are renewed, in a new community, enlivened and encouraged by the Spirit, who gifts us with discernment – discernment to see God at work in creation, in relationships, in communities. Again, why reduce that to following a set of rules from a fallen era?

Share/Bookmark

My mate Bryan at Greyfriars Parish Church, Lanark, has recently started streaming the Sunday morning services. No bad thing and on, Sunday’s snowy morning, an ideal opportunity for those unable to get to church to do more than just listen in, but to get to see what was going on. Undoubtedly, using video technology allows people to feel more part of something than simply listening to the audio.

Sunday had a slight twist to it – it was communion. A short flurry of discussion on Facebook certainly gave the impression that some who were tuned in from home shared in communion using what they had in the house. I somewhat cheekily wondered if epiclesis worked through cyberspace and that comment triggered a little bit of a (gentle) bashing.

But it’s a serious question (even though it makes something that ought to be simple, more complicated) and, in my opinion, impacts on our understanding of sacramental ministry. Bryan suggested that it was sufficient to rely on Jesus’ promise that where two or three are gathered in His name, He will be with them. Which begs the question, “Why do you need an ordained minister to pronounce an invocation, when it’s God who does all the work?” This was the core of my thesis – the Church of Scotland needs to get its brain round sacramental ministry if it is going to encourage more innovative forms of worship – and video-streaming services isn’t exactly at the extreme end of the innovation spectrum.

Someone else wondered whether it would therefore be possible to perform a baptism over the airways, so to speak. It’s exactly the same issue. Is there some sort of ‘essential presence’ that a minister, and only a minister, brings to these sacramental acts? Or is it simply a case of the practical consideration that it gets done ‘properly’, with no under-the-table jiggery-pokery?

The point I made in my thesis was that conversations around these issues really need to be happening right now, otherwise we end up with a free-for-all which will, ultimately, cause further argument within an organisations which could well do without further cause for dissension in the ranks. And these conversations need to be focused on what is happening in churches now and not just at some academic, ivory-tower, theological level.

Share/Bookmark

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.

Share/Bookmark

The first is an article by Richard B Hays which is an adaptation of a lengthier book section. It is a pretty comprehensive statement of the conservative position on homosexuality. I recall reading the full book section in 2nd year New Testament studies and found it to be useful then. That was not long before General Assembly discussed the issue of human sexuality. The Mission and Discipleship report (.doc file, via OneKirk) and the congregation discussion resource document (1.5M pdf file, via OneKirk) they produced drew heavily on this work for the conservative perspective. It was also at the heart of a ‘refutation‘ at the time by Paul Middleton, but that work never fully engaged with Hays and so I was left feeling that it was a somewhat selective and not entirely convincing counter-argument.

The second referenced article is by Kim Fabricius (on Ben Myers blog) is a useful ‘in a nutshell’ view from the other side of the debate. The comments are extensive and worth a skim through. It is not a point-by-point argument and assumes a degree of ‘honest’ scholarship which recognises the ambiguity in many of the scriptural references to homosexual activity. If that’s not your ‘place’ then I would recommend doing some wider reading before decrying what Kim says. An ‘honest’ approach will/should leave Romans 1 as one of the few ‘unambiguous’ texts which need to be dealt with. Thereafter you may engage with his propositions and reach your own conclusion.

Finally, the third article referenced is not a theology one, but rather a media comment on a recent sex scandal in Australia. It makes some very valid moral/ethical observations which, I think, are quite pertinent to the whole discussion.

*Updated 18/7/11 to fix dead links

Share/Bookmark

Well, it actually got me thinking a lot more than that, although it was primarily because I didn’t agree with a lot of it – or, at least, felt it was ‘lacking’ in certain areas. But it was the ‘So what?” question that got me going and I was wondering how often we don’t adequately deal with the ‘So what?’ of our faith and what we say about it.

Let me explain what my particular ‘So what?’ issue was in this instance.

The preacher took an opportunity to have a bit of a dig at the ‘God is love’ approach to Christian faith. This, they felt, was a limited understanding of God and threw away a significant part of the Bible which speaks of God’s justice, wrath and judgement. We got the ‘God loves us’ bit, but in the usual illustration of a loving parent who chastises (punishes) their child ‘for their own good’. I got the distinct impression that God didn’t do nearly enough of that these days and we would be well warned that he might just decide to smite us all for being miserable sinners one day.

Now, I don’t deny that the Bible speaks of a God of judgement, but surely that is the point of the cross. Jesus was judged in our place. All our iniquities were laid on him. He became sin for us. And whatever other verses you want to throw into the mix. Christ’s death on the cross brought about forgiveness for our sinfulness, did it not? God looks on Jesus and pardons us, does he not? Yes, God judges, but God has judged Jesus so that we won’t be.

Or am I missing something? Was Christ’s death on the cross not quite enough? Did Christ only die for some of our sins?

And if that’s not the case then, other than to illustrate (one of) the purposes of the cross, why keep banging on about God’s judgement and wrath? Is it because it simply goes against the grain to think that people are getting away with things we don’t like? But is this not the very point of God’s grace – we have ‘got away with it’, even the worst of ‘it’? It’s not grace otherwise! It’s our own efforts to self-improve to be ‘good enough’ to be accepted.

But what of texts which speak of a final judgement? We still have to go back to those questions about Christ’s atoning death. It either did it all or it didn’t. If it didn’t, we’re all stuffed. If it did then beating me down with how awful I am and God will judge me is a pointless exercise. What is more likely to get a response – a threat or a gift? If the ‘judgement’ of God only falls on those who reject his gift, then why offer only a threat and ignore the gift? And if it is the gift that matters, why dwell on the threat?

I get the need for a balanced picture of God. I’m just not sure that the correct balance is 50:50 and that whenever ‘God is love’ is preached it needs to be balanced with judgement. Otherwise, we risk, I think, diminishing the life, death and resurrection of Jesus with a whole series of ‘So what?’ questions.

Share/Bookmark

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.

Share/Bookmark

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.

Share/Bookmark

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.

Share/Bookmark

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.

Share/Bookmark

However, even someone tied to bungee cords will find a point of equilibrium and that doesn’t seem to be true for me. Nikki threw a phrase into the pot which seemed to be a pretty accurate ‘label’ – Restless Theology. I rather liked that, so with due credit to Nikki for coming up with the name, I lay claim to it as a label for describing my own theology. I will post some restless thoughts in due course.

Share/Bookmark