This week began with some reading from Remembering our Future: Explorations in Deep Church by Luke Bretherton and Andrew Walker. The content of the book stems for an informal seminar and gathering of theologians and church leaders, all seeking “a way to the future by remembering the past” (p. xv).
In the introduction, the authors reframe the notion of deep church by describing two key elements: a) discontent for the loss of confidence in the Gospel and b) a concern for what faithful and enlivening witness in contemporary contexts consists of. The authors are strongly concerned with a deep church that is fully on the breaking point of both tradition and emerging culture, rooted in tradition while engaging the present. Underlining the theme of the essays is the awareness of the need for tradition, to engage the present, and proclaim the truth of the Gospel.
In chapter one, Walker begins by positing the “gospel amnesia,” which leads to a disconnection with our story and a disconnection with who we are in Christ. As my fellow group member Doug suggested, in our discussion, “most people on one hand have no idea where the church came from.” This aligns itself with Murray’s thoughts on post-Christendom and how believers and non-believers alike will have lost touch with the narrative of Christ. To counteract this, Walker presents two elements for deep church: historical reality and spiritual formation. To the former, Walker suggests that connecting to our history, as a church, will bring a renewed understanding of our identity in Christ and the Gospel message. To the latter, Walker states that spiritual formation is apposite to existential reality. Walker notes that the formation of our beings, to reflect Christ, comes through “worship and in our relationship to God and one another” (p.8). Thus arises the need for an understanding of tradition and the permanence of community. I sincerely appreciate Petey’s summation of this key idea: “To seek Deep Church means that we will focus on what God's done (in the past and present) to push us forward into the future: together.”
In chapter three, Walker speaks to the issue of paradosis, the ability to use scripture and tradition as a way to understanding and living out the Apostolic truths of our faith.
He states: “Scripture in a sense is affirmed, sustained, and unfolded by tradition, but tradition is illuminated, judged and controlled by Scripture. Together they are the content of faith: paradosis” (p.61). The traditions Walker is concerned with are those that have been passed on by the Church Fathers, through creeds and councils, and through oral tradition. Scripture, the Holy Word of God is not to be diminished by tradition; but is instead “sustained” by tradition. Oral tradition is the carrier of the deposit of Faith that was entrusted to the church. Written scripture holds the story to which our lives are connected, our family history. Together they form a “symbiotic relationship.”
I do see one issue however, Walker confronts the issue of “gospel amnesia,” which seems to be an issue believers face. Disconnecting from the story of the Gospel and our identity in Christ can retract from the fulfillment which we receive through Christ. However, for those who have not been pursuing Christ and are not actively involved in the church (or have never been at all), would “gospel amnesia” be used to describe them, assuming they have no idea what to think about Christ. From what perspective would the Church address their situation. What is tradition going to mean to them, if they have nothing to connect it to in the first place? What is spiritual formation to them, if they have no understanding of the Spirit? What is historical reality to them, if this is the first church they have ever set foot in? Though Walker’s arguments are quite concrete, I presume that his concept of deep church is more readily addressed to those who have a concept of church. Is there the possibility of a more surface level concept to introduce new believers to a very deep faith?
This is merely an expansion of my thoughts on the elements of deep church and I very humbly present them (considering I have not had the experiences Walker has had).
All in all, I do consider Walker’s arguments very solid and effective for building up the church and digging deeper into our faith. I believe that the only way to fully address all issue facing the church is through an appreciation for tradition, an awareness of the cultural atmosphere and a strong guidance of the Spirit. Walker best addresses this process in Chapter One, stating “For there is work to do in the kingdom of God, not because it is a means of earning eternal rewards, but because constructive and imaginative approaches to Spirit breathed liturgies and practical programmes of theological renewal need effort as well as inspiration.” (p.10)
Friday, September 28, 2007
Friday, September 21, 2007
Miller meets Healy: Consumer Culture meets the Church
In reading and discussing Nicolas Healy’s book, Church, World and the Christian Life, I have been quite drawn to his concept and discourse concerning “blueprint ecclesiologies.” Healy begins by identifying five methodological elements that have shaped the last century. Let us begin with a brief summary of these elements:
style="text-align: left;font-family:verdana;">First, is the attempt to capture the “essential characteristic of the church.” Secondly, is to define the church as a structure with “bipartite” interests. Both of these, as Healy suggests, are often combined into the third element, a prescribed ecclesiology which determines norms and standards. Fourth is the inclination to reflect on the church apart from its concrete identity. The fifth element, which stems from the previous four, is the attempt to present the church as an ideal ecclesiological system.
I readily agree with these elements that Healy proposes, as I have experienced some of them first hand. In my personal experience, I have found that churches often concern themselves with revealing to the world that it has captured the essence of Christ: saving the lost. One will often find that while attempts to ‘save the lost’ are being presented, the church is mostly inward focused. As my friend Josh described in our discussion, the Outreach Ministry (a generic name) is often seen as having the “job” of going out into the world. Another example that comes to mind, which Healy touches on, is that churches often prescribe idealizations which do not reflect the concrete identity of the church. This can lead the church away from examining and reflecting on it’s sinfulness; and instead it is living out a seemingly Christ-like ecclesiology.
The ideas that Healy proposes parallel the issues that have been discussed by Vincent Miller, in his book Consuming Religion. In his final chapter, Miller begins by countering the commodification of culture and religion by the simple tactic of awareness. The awareness of our consumer habits serves as a launching pad for change; and would draw greater connections between belief and practice. Healy notes that “To treat Christianity as if it has a definable essence, a single principle in terms of which one could systematically map the whole, is inevitably to distort it” (p.35). This illustrates a connection (as I see it) between both authors: fragmentation as a result of commodification (Miller) perpetuate the attempt, by the church and humans alike, to appropriate models for church without reflecting upon the concrete identity of the church (Healy). Awareness of the sinfulness and carelessness of the church would help to combat the commodification of religion, in and through the church as well.
In synthesizing and expanding, through group discussion, I have come to understand that Healy is quite certain that no one element, method, or model can accurately fit the church at large. His simplest response to this is that by accepting any one model the church denies the flaws inherent within that model and relegates other models to lesser ideals which have no value. This supports his dissatisfaction with “blueprint” models.
After all, we are the church, the Body of Christ; our responsibility is first to God, and second to ourselves.
style="text-align: left;font-family:verdana;">First, is the attempt to capture the “essential characteristic of the church.” Secondly, is to define the church as a structure with “bipartite” interests. Both of these, as Healy suggests, are often combined into the third element, a prescribed ecclesiology which determines norms and standards. Fourth is the inclination to reflect on the church apart from its concrete identity. The fifth element, which stems from the previous four, is the attempt to present the church as an ideal ecclesiological system.
I readily agree with these elements that Healy proposes, as I have experienced some of them first hand. In my personal experience, I have found that churches often concern themselves with revealing to the world that it has captured the essence of Christ: saving the lost. One will often find that while attempts to ‘save the lost’ are being presented, the church is mostly inward focused. As my friend Josh described in our discussion, the Outreach Ministry (a generic name) is often seen as having the “job” of going out into the world. Another example that comes to mind, which Healy touches on, is that churches often prescribe idealizations which do not reflect the concrete identity of the church. This can lead the church away from examining and reflecting on it’s sinfulness; and instead it is living out a seemingly Christ-like ecclesiology.
The ideas that Healy proposes parallel the issues that have been discussed by Vincent Miller, in his book Consuming Religion. In his final chapter, Miller begins by countering the commodification of culture and religion by the simple tactic of awareness. The awareness of our consumer habits serves as a launching pad for change; and would draw greater connections between belief and practice. Healy notes that “To treat Christianity as if it has a definable essence, a single principle in terms of which one could systematically map the whole, is inevitably to distort it” (p.35). This illustrates a connection (as I see it) between both authors: fragmentation as a result of commodification (Miller) perpetuate the attempt, by the church and humans alike, to appropriate models for church without reflecting upon the concrete identity of the church (Healy). Awareness of the sinfulness and carelessness of the church would help to combat the commodification of religion, in and through the church as well.
In synthesizing and expanding, through group discussion, I have come to understand that Healy is quite certain that no one element, method, or model can accurately fit the church at large. His simplest response to this is that by accepting any one model the church denies the flaws inherent within that model and relegates other models to lesser ideals which have no value. This supports his dissatisfaction with “blueprint” models.
After all, we are the church, the Body of Christ; our responsibility is first to God, and second to ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)