sustain:if:able kiwi

Double Rainbow: a missiology for the least of these

I’ve been really enjoying The Double Rainbow: James K Baxter, Ngati Hau and the Jerusalem Commune by John Newton. It’s beautifully written, an important study of what is quite a unique form of emerging church, commune’s in the 1970s.

Here’s part of the introduction.

“When Maori and pakeha do these things together, the double rainbow begins to shine.” The double rainbow is Baxter’s symbol for a mutually regenerative bicultural relationship … Pakeka culture’s material dominance was accompanied by an arrogance and ethnocentrism which left it spiritually impoverished. “The Maori is indeed the elder brother and the Pakeha the younger brother. But the [younger brother] has refused to learn from the [elder brother]. He has sat sullenly among his machines and account books, and wondered why his soul was full of bitter dust.”

The book explores Baxter’s forming of the community at Jerusalem. It describes the impact of Parihaka on Baxter and how it turned him toward Maori culture. So much of Baxter’s arrival at Jerusalem has echos of Luke 10:1-12, of Baxter arriving barefoot and throwing himself on the hospitality of the local Maori.

The book moves beyond Baxter’s death, describing the emphasis on the least of the these, nga mokai, the fatherless and nga raukore, the trees who have had their leaves stripped, and the place of relationships and love in the healing of broken people and mental illness. It is a totally unique story: a Pakeha community built on Maori terms.

A lot of my creativity and reading in the last month has been around Kiwi mission themes (Parihaka, local peace stories). I’ve found it energised and humbling. And perplexing. Why, when I’m moving to Australia, am I so challenged? Isn’t it a waste? Shouldn’t I be staying, continuing to thrive in this Kiwi soil? I have no answers, simply wanting to name my confusion.

Discerning the emerging church

I have just playing around with what I might say on Tuesday at Tabor College. I am due to give a 2 hour seminar, titled Discerning the emerging. The audience is meant to be a mix of under-grad and post-grad. So it needs to be simple, yet have some intellectual depth. A free night after a relaxed weekend has allowed me to pull together quite a few threads on my hard drive, which will ensure an all new, “fresh bread” presentation.

Here is my current working outline

1. Defining the emerging: some humour, some definitions.
2. Discerning the emerging in history: Acts 5, Acts 15 and an overview of the insights from The Holy Spirit in the World: A Global Conversation
3. Carson’s duality of truth from experience in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: Understanding a Movement and Its Implications
4. John Drane’s marks of maturity: old and new.
5. LeRon Schults reforming ecclesiology: the emerging as one, holy, catholic and apostolic church
6. Post-colonial mission: Luke 10:1-12 and an overview of An Introduction to the Study of Luke-Acts
7. Conclusion: Discerning is a gift, which we can nourish by working on our skills. Part of this working at our discerning skills is becoming aware of the methods of others – their strengths, their weaknesses. It is fascinating to see the development in the last few years of a range of approaches to discerning the emerging church. We need these resources, for discerning is an essential Christian discipline.

in a tangle over membership

Sunday morning service included the welcoming of 6 new members at church. This included a family of 5 from the Philipines and made for an exciting service.

On the way home my children floored me. “Dad, are we church members? We listened to what you said (by way of introduction). You talked about membership as belonging, and membership as participation. So we can be members. Right?”

As baptists, we have a number of rites of “theological” passage: membership, baptism and communion. Historically, they are not generally reserved for children. But looking at my kids, I’m suddenly not actually saw why not. If my kids participate and feel they belong, why can’t they be members?

Help me with theology of children and faith development folks.

For more on membership:

how important is the packaging?

My kids were indignant. “Even Wall E,” they yelled from across the shop. They were conducting research for a school project. The topic is recyling, so the kids were going through the toy department, assessing first the extent of plastic packaging and second whether or not the packing was recyleable. Wall E failed on both counts.

My kids were disgusted. We’d seen the movie together and been inspired by the eco-friendly evangelism. As I concluded my film review: WALL-E is a sermon, and a better sermon you are not likely to hear. The earth is God’s good gift and should be treated as such. Humans actions have inevitable consequences. Yet, in repeated grace, humans are offered an olive branch. Best we learn from our mistakes, avoid being called a race of wally’s, rather than trust our planet to a determined robot, name of WALL-E.

A fine sermon, spoiled for my kids, by the packaging; the rhetoric, ruined by the wrapper.

My thoughts turned to Sunday. Morning worship would include a dedication of a child – the family new to the church, visitors sure to be present. I began to wonder how our ‘wrapper’ might be perceived.

It’s not about the packaging right? That’s a common mantra of the missional/emerging church. We’re sick of slick. We’re tired of excellence. It’s all about being authentic. Who cares about the packaging. Right?

Or should we be more honest. Is authentic actually a legitimation for being slack? If the medium is the message, then the packaging should never be ignored.

I consider all the interlocking parts that would make up the Sunday morning experience: warmth of church, newsletter, greeting at door, welcome in foyer, soundsystem, data projection, microphone technique, music, notices, after church coffee, Kidstime arrangements, warmth of creche on a freezing cold winter’s morning. All the people that give time, that serve.

I factored in the reality that in New Zealand, we’re in the midst of flu season. With over 40% of our local school away sick, this must surely, at some point, impact the church. Volunteers will become unavailable and this will simply put more pressure on all the interlocking parts.

It’s not about the packaging right? Just be authentic.

Holding the non-recyleable Wall E toy, looking at the disappointment in the eyes of my kids, I’m no longer as sure as I used to be.

Further links:
Film review of Wall E here.
Numerous film reviews here.

am I emerging/ent and why Rock Harbour is right and wrong?

Just been listening to some church (called Rock Harbour) reflect on the question of why they are, or are not emerging/ent? (hat tip Andrew Jones). There’s a position paper, plus a long video (I watched the first 70 minutes) here. I have not met these folk. But since I often get pinged by the question – are you, Steve Taylor, emerging/ent, it was fascinating to watch someone else search for a response. What resources do they use? Does their reasoning make sense?

Here are some thoughts as I listened:
1. I like the way they set up a framework, which they suggested gave them freedom to quote from people they disagree with. They pointed to how Paul and Jude quoted their opponents, and thus, by abstraction, we can quote from people without agreeing with all of their theology. This makes sense and I liked the way that Rock Harbour then used that to encourage people to think and test for themselves.

2. They show little awareness of the processes of interpretation. They make a strong point of talking about “the Bible” and how they were Biblical. But they showed no awareness of the fact that everyone person reads “the Bible” from within culture and through their existing frameworks. There is no such thing as “pure Bible reading.” I would suggest Rock Harbour need to work harder on making the process of interpretation clearer. It is not Bible <---> individual believer, because interpretation also includes the Spirit (who is sent to point to truth) and the community, to whom the Bible was given.

3. They make a big deal of the four gospels being different, which they then use as examples of contextualisation. By implication this frees them to contextualise. Well yes. But they then make the statement that the Gospel writers, while contextualising, are committed to an unchanging core. At this point my logic detector goes off. Where, I want to know, is this unchanging core? If this is not in the four gospels, where is it? If it is a synthesis of the gospel eg into propositions or a doctrinal statement, then who has done this synthesising, because surely this is a human interpretation of the core? And at that point the Rock Harbour approach to contextualisation becomes wobbly IMHO, simply because they are trying to present an undefined, inner, “core” as somehow divinely ordained.

4. They make a big deal of Acts being about contextualisation (which it is), but duck – majorly – the power and weight of Acts 15. Acts 15 is crucial, because Acts 15 suggests that contextualisation, correctly practised is NOT about doctrinal purity (the unchanging core), but about the praxis of caring of the poor and the ethics of food sacrifice. In other words, don’t use Acts to defend your doctrinal purity, but to consider how faith is lived.

5. They spend a long time on why they will keep spiritual formation. (It needed a good edit.) Surely it would have been simpler to apply their notion in (1) – that they are simply taking the best bits from the Christian tradition.

6. Their notion that “It is finished” is a salvific statement surprised me. I interpret “It is finished” as Jesus dying. If “It is finished” it is salvific, then what is place of resurrection and the Spirit in their theology? In other words, salvation is not just the death of Jesus, it’s also the life, death and resurrection.

So, after having been reflective on another group, how would I answer the question? are you, Steve Taylor, emerging/ent?

My answer is this
1. In Acts 2, the Spirit comes and one of the signs of the Spirit is that people heard in their own language.
2. That work continues today, as the Spirit continues to desire that people hear God in their own language. That for me, is how I see the term emerging/ent church.
3. Yes, this work of Spirit will require discernment, the ability to recognise what is working toward God and what is working away from God. We’re not the first people to face such questions and for that we have the Scriptures and the community of God and the knowledge gained throughout history.
4. This conversation between Spirit, church, Bible, with the knowledge gained through history, must generate debate. That debate is part of the reason there’s a lot written about emerging/ent church. Like all debates, there’s both heat and light, so books and websites need to approached with brains on. All that is heat is not light and vice versa.
5. God wants to make Godself known and this is an essential part of the work of God’s Spirit. This Spirit is one of love, not of fear, and so as we talk together, we need to seek relationships that give and receive love, (modelled in the way and walk of Jesus).

what is church? emerging forms in Aotearoa New Zealand

Welcome to Laidlaw students from Theology and Praxis in Global Ministry class. Here are the video’s I used: Firstly, how to move a 100 year old church

and secondly, We need to change everything.

The use of Dwelling in Word as an approach to Scriptural engagement gets some coverage here and here.

Links to some experimental Kiwi emerging church forms (based on the class reading Taylor, “A Kiwi Emerging Church? Yeah Right!” New Vision New Zealand, Volume III, 2008, Tabernacle Books, 311-324) include the Kitchen, Cathedral of Second life, Stations of cross (with specific videos here) and Christmas journey.

Thanks for all your energy and questions, I thought it was a great class.

it may be emerging but is it church?

Just became aware of some Kiwi and Presbyterian discussion of emerging church in the last month or so. The annual lecture at Knox Centre for Ministry and Leadership was delivered by Dr Kevin Ward, titled It may be emerging but is it church? Followed by a response from Bruce Hamill.

A nice compliment by Kevin in his introduction: Steve Taylor, who has emerged as the leading spokesperson for emerging church in NZ, and a significant global voice, in quoting my “A Kiwi Emerging Kiwi Church: Yeah Right!” from the VisionNZ Conference last year.

Kevin addresses the question of whether emerging is church by using the fourfold formulae from the Nicene Creed – one, holy, catholic and apostolic. It is the same formulae I used in my book, The Out of Bounds Church?: Learning to Create a Community of Faith in a Culture of Change (Emergent Ys), to argue that yes, emerging is church. I argue that the Trinity offers us a relational understanding of God and this church is one as two or three gather (Matthew 18:20). I note that the moment a group defines themselves as church (consciously or sub-consciously), they must recognise other groups that define themselves as church. This provides a relational way to approach tradition and history. No church is the Ground Zero of Christian faith. Rather, all churches, are fellow pilgrims, seeking to walk in the expressed love of the Trinity. So just because a church is older, it should not be privileged. Equally, because a church is newer, it should not be privileged. Both are pilgrims, needing to learn from each other.

That was in 2005. In 2009, I find increasingly perplexing the method by which the marks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic are defined. You see this is Kevin’s paper, where the marks are sheeted to theologians (dead white guys). You see this in my book, where the marks are sheeted to the Trinity.

I was pondering this on study leave and I began to wonder what would happen if the marks of the church were sheeted to Biblical narratives, rather than theologians, and particularly to women, rather than men. So Mary in her humility and willingness to say yes to moments of surrender and her singing of magnificient (Luke 1) defines one; Anna in her embodiement of Asher, the banished Northern Tribe, (Luke 2) defines holy; Elizabeth in her generous, hospitable, physical, welcome of the pregnant teenager Mary (Luke 1) defines catholic; Mary Magadalene as the first person post-resurrection instructed to witness defines apostolic.

It seems to me that such a reading produces very different marks of the church and serves both as challenge and encouragement to an ecclesiology that is humble, surrendered, inclusive, hospitable, and missionary.

Just some stray ruminations from a tired little brain on a beautiful Christchurch morning.

is my fresh expression like your fresh expression

Had an enjoyable and stimulating afternoon with Peter and Helen Pillinger, involved in fresh expressions (Methodist) in the UK. Adding richness to the conversation was David Bush (New Zealand Methodist leader), Pete Majendie (Kiwi installation artist) and Mark Pierson (World Vision New Zealand).

We talked widely comparing countries:
– the uniqueness of the UK in having such great denominational leadership resourcing fresh expressions
– the uniqueness of the rave scene in the UK, which birthed alternative worship
– the uniqueness of the Baptist scene in New Zealand, which has the strength of allowing local innovation, but the seeming disadvantage of an inability to resource longer-term innovation and change
– whether size of fresh expression congregations is an adequate marker of missional effectiveness
– how to find, resource and train fresh expression leaders
– if everything is a fresh expression, is anything a fresh expression
– how blinded are we to the needed shapes of future leaders.

Not many conclusions. For me, sitting in around the couches at Opawa it was quite encouraging to realise that from a UK fresh expression perspective, Opawa as a church has planted 4 “fresh expressions” in the last 5 years. And that my year long training of missional church leaders is considered ahead of the UK game. (They have put aside millions to work on their training of pioneer leaders, while down here in New Zealand we simply plug away, innovating on our shoestrings.) Yah for Opawa and for Kiwi no. 8 wire innovation.

emerging church on air

Updated: Thanks to Rhema and wikiupload, the interview (6 mins long) is here and click “download”. I was most pleased with my line: “beware a bunnyhoping approach to church history” 🙂

I’ve been asked to be on air – Radio Rhema – tomorrow (Thursday) morning. Some person called Roger Oakland is touring New Zealand trashing the emerging church and they want a response from me at 7:40 am. I have just finished listening to an hour of one of his online videos re emerging church.

Personally, I don’t think it does Rhema any favours have this sort of stuff on air.

1 – He’s so extreme. When a person rejects those who read Purpose Driven Church or Richard Foster, those who listen to The Message, people shaped by the charismatic renewal, those interested in spiritual formation, then that’s a lot of evangelical church being dismissed, yet alone the Catholic church. (Vision New Zealand has had Catholic Archbishop John Dew speak twice at their Congress.)

2 – At heart this is a question of discernment. How do you know whether what is emerging is of God? Roger quotes the book of Jude for the need to discern. What is important is that Jude writes to a community. So discerment belongs in community. (Who is Roger’s community?) The Bible offers another models for discernment. In Acts 3, Gamaliel suggests fruit over time. In Acts 15 the church gives freedom, as long as the poor are remembered. Jesus suggests we love our enemies. What might happen if Roger applied these to the emerging church – give time, give freedom as long as they love the poor, love them?

3 – The way he constructs his argument makes him impossible to argue with
a) if you disagree with him, then you are deceived
b) if your criticise him, then you are a persecuter of the righteous remnant

4 – He asks the question “What Jesus will emerge from the emerging church?” Now that’s a good question and based on my reading and study, I’d suggest
(a) Jesus that takes Incarnation seriously
(b) a Jesus gospel that applies to whole of life
(c) a following of a Jesus who is the way, the truth, the life – Christian faith is not about an intellectual understanding of doctrine, but about a relationship with Triune God.

5 – And if I was to be critical of the emerging church movement, I’d offer some different critiques to those offered by Mr Oakland. I’d be challenging it to
– place a moratorium on US books and speakers
– take the absent voices (poor, women, ethnic) more seriously
– spend less time blog-ologising and more time discipling among real people in real communities

thoughtful reflection on missional church

A thoughtful reflection by Mark Sayers on the missiology of missional church here.

1. Failed to define what is meant by “attractional”

2. Failed to define what is meant by “incarnational”

3. Being overly defined by a reaction to mass/popular culture

4. Failing to understand “low fuel tank faith”

5. Being wed to Gen-X culture.

I have tried to say similar things about attractional and incarnational here and here and here (but less well than Mark).

I’d personally want to say more about mass/popular culture and low fuel tank faith. Regarding, mass/popular culture, I think there is a quest for “chic and cool” which bugs a lot of alt.worship stuff, a sort of snobbery of mass culture that has made it elitist. At the same time, there is a tension here, because if most innovation comes from innovators, then they are likely to live among the chic and cool.

Regarding low fuel tank faith, this is where we need to work out our theology and images of mission. A lot of work went into this, for me, after we planted Graceway. It was the desire to find ways to reenchant people’s passion for spirituality and mission that lay behind my Out of bounds church? book.

In terms of the worldwide emerging church movement I would add;

6. We have failed to honour our parents. We have been too quick to slag off at established church. Yet all the time they are funding our mission (ie paying salaries) and have given us faith and life. So a lot of my time in recent years has been the move to Opawa and the working with established denominations, because theologically, surely God can work anywhere, inside and outside the church.

In New Zealand I would add;
7. We have failed to develop relationships with minority cultures. We have not taken justice and relationship building seriously enough and so we remain too white and Western and male.

counting sheep (if you must)

“Is the emerging church a sell-out to contemporary culture?” was the moot for a 60 minute debate I spoke at today. (Using the wonders of technology, I spoke in Christchurch, while my sparring partner was in the city of Auckland). An audience question at the end asked about conversion rates. If I’d had time, I would have named the following:

– If you must count, it is interesting to do the stats on the reported baptisms at Mark Driscoll’s church last year, to divide the number reportedly baptised (200) against their attendance (7000). It was about the same percentage (2.8%) as the average of all the Baptist churches here in New Zealand, and 2007 wasn’t a flash year for NZ baptists (1040 divided by 42,000 attenders = 2.5%).

– In a similar vein from David Fitch: “Missional churches are so much smaller. 6 conversions from a group of 25 over ten years would match (or exceed) the percentage growth of a typical mega church.”

– and some wisdom from a shepherd “I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. Luke 15:3-7

its about power

I flew back with someone from my congregation today. She was on a surprise trip home. As we flew, we talked about her work. It’s a new job, working not within a large hospital, but instead visiting homes in the community.

Her eyes sparkled as she talked about being in the home of another. She’s now a guest, dependant on hospitality of another. She loses power. And she loves it.

I told her about my day with the Salvation Army leadership. How I used Luke 10:-12, to encourage the church out of the institution and into the community. And the text encourages hospitality.

Last week Prodigal and I talked back and forth about the relationship between mission and worship (see the comments especially). And Paul has blogged more here.

The airplane/workplace conversation today helped me clarify things. For centuries the church has been in a place of power. Worship and spiritual formation are so easily placed within that place of power. People come to us, and we remain at the center of the conversations.

When you start with mission, in the homes of another, worship and formation are much more likely to emerge from places of powerlessness. Which to me seems to be what the way of Jesus was about.

I am not suggesting in any what that by going, sitting, dwelling, our gospel is diluted. I am rather drawing attention to the hidden power that so insidiously corrupts our imagination.

emerging church as countercultural

Is the emerging church a sellout to current culture? I am addressing this question at a BCNZ forum next Thursday.

Today, as part of my research, I am surfing the web and scouring the literature, looking for examples of emerging church as countercultural, as swimming against postmodern tides, as offering prophetic critique to the whims and whimsy of our world.

If you know of any examples, I’d love to hear them.

Update: In response to helpful comments, here is my basic framework.
1 – some stories of cross-cultural sell-out
2 – what is emerging church
3 – the missiology of Luke 10:1-12
4 – encouragements to the emerging church from Luke 10:1-12
5 – challenges to the emerging church from Luke 10:1-12
6 – so, is the emerging church a sell-out ….?
(If you want the paper, let me know and I will see what happens to it post-delivery).

labelling emerging and emergent

Tony Jones, head of USEmergent, has expressed concern about those who draw lines between emerging and emergent. To which I made the following comment:

Frankly, I think it’s cheeky that you [Tony Jones] can co-edit a book, titled “Emergent Manifesto”, written by Americans only, and now tell us that there is no difference between the terms [emergent and emerging].

Or perhaps it’s more to do with Doug wanting to draw authorial lines around the book brand?

If Emergent wants to speak for the world, then they have a lot of work to do, and it doesn’t start by saying “oh, we’re all really the same aren’t we!”