Distinctly Welcoming

Pioneer Ordination: not nearly so radical or institutional enough

I've had a short article posted on the Fresh Expressions "Share the Guide" blog where I share some thoughts on Pioneer ordination. It comes at a time when various folk are reviewing and assessing the direction of Pioneer and, for my money, falling into the trap of defaulting to "more of the same" or "institutions always suck". Let me know what you think, anyway.

Yesterday, I had a letter published in the Guardian after they'd done a bit of a hatchet job on the Church of England over the weekend in the midst of controversies to do with sexuality and women bishops. There's a lot to be embarrassed about in this church many of us are part of, but i do wish there were more insightful analyses of our predicament.

As a bit of a final flourish, let me add my voice congratulating the Church on opening the door, and not leaving it slightly ajar, to women bishops.

Pioneer Ordination: more tea, vicar?

I'm about to go on ordination retreat. So, yes, this Sunday I will be ordained into the Church of England as a Pioneer curate. According to your point of view, I will be either:

1. showing my age and finally succumbing to the genteel temptations of establishment, compromising my principles along the way

2. courageously serving this wonderful institution as it fulfils its vocation to the entire nation

...I'd like to think there are alternative conclusions but the impression is sometimes that these are the two responses one gets. I've been intrigued by the discussion on the institution between Jonny Baker and Kester Brewin and I may chip in at some point. However, in the meantime, here's a little piece that I'll be taking with me this weekend, given me by Ray Gaston:

"We are not ordaining you to ministry; that happened at your baptism. We are not ordaining you to serve the Church in committees, activities, organisation; that is already implied in your membership. We are not ordaining you to become involved in social issues, in ecology, race, politics, and the search for justice and peace; for that is laid on every Christian.

We are ordaining you to something smaller and less spectacular; to read and interpret those sacred stories of our community, so that they speak a word to people today; to remember and practice those rituals of meaning that address people at the level where change takes place; to foster in community, through word and sacrament, that encounter with truth which will set people free to minister as the Body of Christ.

We are ordaining you to the ministry of the word and sacraments and pastoral care.

God grant you grace not to betray but uphold it, not to deny but to affirm it, through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Amen....

Zizek and the Revolution/Insurrection: recommending suspicion

Some time ago I wrote a piece about "piracy" which caused a bit of a stir and much against my original intentions I want to follow that up. Pete Rollins and Kester Brewin (who inspired the earlier discussion) have been reading a lot of the Slovenian philosopher Zizek's work and, in the absence of any other dissenting voices, I'd like to weigh in with my reasons for being suspicious. I do this hesitantly because a big drawback to the original debate was its exclusivity: there are some powerful and complex ideas swirling around and a language that is quite intimidating. One one level, this is what is urging me to write because there is a danger that one-sided complexity gives the aura of unchallenged authority...So that's by way of excuse/apology.

To give a brief intro to Zizek: first of all, he is wonderfully entertaining and fascinating. An appearance on last week's BBC Culture Show was brilliant and engaging. He's a man immersed in Hegal and Lacan but equally conversant in Star Wars and Kung-Fu Panda. One anecdote which epitomises him is that, growing up in communist Slovenia, his favourite film was The Sound of Music. The excised and edited version of the film that they were permitted to watch omitted the scene where Maria is encouraged to leave the convent by the sisters because she is clearly in love. For communist Slovenia, that demonstrated the life-affirming nature of the Catholic Church: and that was an unacceptable truth. In a post-Berlin wall world, Marx has lost his sheen and totems that reroot the world order and invert the status quo are being searched for. So far, so good. In Zizek's mischievous perversity, Jesus is the answer, Paul a radical revolutionary. If the twentieth century's moral scandal was Auschwitz, this century's symbol of crisis is Guantanemo Bay: the place that admits that the law fails... and thus the language of law, the cross, kenosis comes into play with post-Marxist cultural criticism.

It's all great stuff to engage with: big questions, wonderful shared allusions to the Christian story and faith. It's philosophy wrestling with theology...but it's still philosophy in dominance. What i mean by that is that it is a philosophy devoid of God because in this reading kenosis is not any more special when exhibited by Jesus than when it is demanded of a Western capitalist (this piece by Kester is indicative of the casual relativising of kenosis. This by pete argues that it is the laying down of distinctions that is paramount: so Jesus' distinction from us as Son of God is less important to us than his going to the cross. Thus, any number of self-sacrificing "martyrs" are redemptive for creation!). It's a reading of the Christian faith that writes out the redemptive purposes of the creator. If there is a revolution "out there", an insurrection only made possible when we give up the pretensions of our belief systems, authorities, churches, legal systems...we are actually colluding in armchair practice. It's great philosophy: but it's not the revolution of the people of God.

Here's what Rowan Williams says:

"definition matters, ultimately, so that resistance is possible to the idolatrous claims of total power that may be made from time to time in the world. Definition matters so that the Christian is free to say with conviction that the truth of the world and of humanity is not at the disposal of this or that system of political management."

Rowan's words are very similar to Zizek's. The difference (and this is my challenge to Pete and Kester) is in the very political and spiritual import of our definition: our story and the absolute and unequivocal place of Christ as the decisive point of history that frames our story. This loss of definition merely fuels armchair radicalism and iconoclism.

Pioneer Ministry - a few years down the line

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the CofE book "Mission-Shaped Church" was published....Well, it was 2004 and peaking into the next decade, it seems worthwhile to take stock and review where mission and church planting is at, particularly for the Church of England. Ben Edson, who has been one of the key leaders of Sanctus 1, a church community sponsored by the Diocese of Manchester, is moving on to new things and is helpfully posting some important reflections on what he has learned. Ben, for me, is a significant voice in connecting inherited church with radical forms of mission and community, and consistently brings critical reflection both ways so these reflections are invaluable. This specific milestone of reflection is mirrored by a number of "Pioneer" initiatives I know around the country, many because of the time-limits on funding. 18 months ago, the first wave of formal Pioneer ministers was ordained. Fresh Expressions, as a hub of resourcing and encouragement, has been collating stories and endorsing new engagements for some years now. Here area  number of questions that seem to me to be worth considering at this important juncture:

1. are Pioneer ministers being appropriately trained for the mission they are encountering and engaging with or are they essentially still being equipped for inherited church ministry with a certain degree of freedom that "traditional" ministers do not have? If it is the latter, how does the church endorse and affirm the pioneering (with a small "p") outside current structures?

2. to what extent has the setting up of a Pioneer stream created a gap between them and mainstream clergy so that the latter are deemed not to have a responsibility for mission?

3. there have been some legitimate critiques of Mission-Shaped Church that have highlighted the emphasis on church rescue as opposed to genuine mission into our unchurched cultures; to what extent is the Pioneer and Fresh Expressions movement focussing on "church" as opposed to kingdom?

4. what commitment is there to long term sustainability of pioneering church plants or is there a simple formula being applied that drops financial support after several years?

5. Mission-shaped Church and Fresh Expressions are releasing great permission to innovation and creativity...some of these things are not necessarily "new" but we have to rejoice in the opening up of boundaries that have often been so prohibitive...But is there a clear sense of the relative gulfs between church and various communities in contemporary culture and respective missional engagements? Or are people content to see anything "new" (cafe church, prayer on the streets etc etc) as sufficient to the demands of contextualisation today?

6. what is the normative profile of the Pioneer minister's context and Fresh Expressions initiative? Is there sufficient attention to the inner cities, other faiths, rural poverty, young adults....or is this another exercise in retrieving the lost middle classes to the church?

7. In the permission for pioneers, what is the inherited church and its leadership learning from them or is there a two-tier ecclesiology being birthed?

8. for Pioneer church plants with a very specific demographic, to what extent are principles of broad church being applied so that relationships are being forged across the spectrum of the Christian family?

I could probably add to these questions, and I betray some of my own agendas with these prods. But i do believe these are important questions to be asked about a process that i see as generally liberative and vital. What do you think?

Why Study the Past?

"More tea Archbishop?" (in best Dick Emery voice). I love this photo! It was taken when Archbishop Rowan visited our local church and community project last November. I've been reading his book "Why Study the Past?" and it's a gem. A few things have put me in mind of the recent debate on Christian piracy/orthodox heresy. Here are some quotes that seem pertinent:

"To be clear about the Church's boundaries can become an obsessive concern with knowing exactly who is outside, who can be trusted to reflect orthodoxy as I have learned it. But definition matters, ultimately, so that resistance is possible to the idolatrous claims of total power that may be made from time to time in the world. Definition matters so that the Christian is free to say with conviction that the truth of the world and of humanity is not at the disposal of this or that system of political management.

To worship in words shared with non-Christians is to suggest that worship is an activity WE are somehow in charge of; it happens when and how we decide.... I think that, ultimately, the separation of two elements here, an inner relatedness to Christ and an outer flexibility about words and forms, takes away something vital from the idea that God calls into being a tangible human community, whose common language is the carrier of its common relatedness to Christ's invitation. Move away from this, and the visible reality of the Church becomes something almost optional, in a way that makes more abstract the interdependence of believers on one another - their interdependence precisely as visible, material, historical and language-using subjects."

Pirates Part II - Land Ahoy?

Following my last post on Piracy and Heresy, Pete Rollins has posted a substantive response here. It's worth stating before I engage with the counter-critique that the blogworld can very easily alienate people and create more distance between people than there might otherwise be. If Pete, Kester and I lived nearby, I'd certainly appreciate a long friendly chat over malt whisky with mutually searching and enriching questions (you're always welcome to repeat your stay in Birmingham Pete!). So for readers of these blogs, from my point of view, let's try and hold the conversation together rather than default to camps.

I embarked on my critique of some of Kester and Pete's writings with some diffidence because when the "unorthodox", "heretical", "piratical" are espoused as virtues against an errant church, it's exceedingly difficult to avoid disagreeing without being cast in the role of the "orthodox", "established" and "reactionary". Pete senses me wanting to "rein him in" that i feel he has gone "too far". Well, I'm sure he doesn't believe writings such as "the orthodox heretic" brook no discussion or objection, (one of the problems with the motifs proferred by Kester and Pete is in fact that they foreclose any exchange that avoids playing into caricature!). Anyway, I'll try and respond to the main points as I see Pete presenting them:

1. "it seems we are being relegated to that horrible place of domestication" - I'm not convinced that any of us should mind being put in that place so long as we don't domesticate God. Again, setting oneself up as the prophetic/lone/contrary/heretical voice of hope is a dangerous thing to arrogate.
2. "the Law itself is a transgression" - I recognise the "Hegelian move" but refuse it for philosophical and theological reasons. I'll leave the unpacking of that for a late evening and a Macallan, Pete. But I'd want to assert that seeing law (.....moral imperatives, social constraints, law of the land, international justice etc etc) is God-given and necessary and need not negate the structural critique of our complicity in sin that you outline.
3. "Sudworth's apolitical" response - I have to admit I bristled at this! The point i was making was not that the West does not bear some responsibility for the actions of Somali pirates because of unjust trade. My point was to focus attention on the most vulnerable party to the scenario: "the widow and the orphan" in Somalia itself (and knowing folk working in Somalia I do understand that glamorising the Somali pirates and warlords is more than a tad offensive to those widows and orphans). The essence of my objection is a thoroughly political one: that when the grammar of the debate is framed around a dialectic with church, our language loses any coherent moral significance and becomes atomised and individualistic. The sense that ideas are used "magpie-like" is that there is, on the one hand, a philosophical critique of the use of language (of knowledge and belief) coupled with a structural reflection (who holds power? where are we complicit in justice?). The place (the "situatedness" that i'm essentially wanting to uncover) with which you and Kester are asking these questions is not alongside the orphan and the widow. Putting myself in the Christian story, that would seem to be an imperative for assessing the "faithfulness" of God's people (a la Micah). My impression of confusion is because the motif of heretic/pirate/trickster is situated in relation to church ie. "we are the voice that will revitalise church". Those motifs are not situated to stand alongside the poor and the marginalised...the poor and the marginalised are only co-opted as pawns to make a point about "our" marginalisation. It's a line of argument that some might argue is offensive in the light of the massive social capital of the Western (!) emerging church movement. So, i'll critique the structures of global capitalism quite gladly...but I'll not do that in the service of espousing my position in relation to the inherited church.
4.  "again, "when Kester mentions the shift from ‘pirate radio to BBC’ and ‘Napster to Spotify’", this is not a mere individual ‘romance of the new’ as Sudworth claims, but a properly philosophical insight that pirate radio and Napster, in different ways, did not merely transgress the law but showed how the legal system itself was exploitive." I think you make your point well Pete and I concede that my critique that Kester "romances the new" in his argument does not correspond to what he is saying. Kester: apologies that I made that point without sufficient foundation.
5. I can't apologise for stating that i believe that "there is a coherent moral vision to be applied, inescapably, and we practice that moral vision in community and in our tradition’. I know it can sound ever so reactionary (does this make me a heretic in the emerging church movement now? if so, am i perhaps a voice from the margins challenging the decadent mainstream?). It intrigues me that as I talk to Christians from a liberal tradition, so many are wanting to recover a more tradition-centred, communitarian and moral-ethical vision. For so many academic liberal theologians as well as those in pastoral ministry, the "religionless Christianity" that was popularised in the 1960's by John Robinson is just redundant, vacuous and didn't work. Particularly for the sake of the widow and orphan, it means nothing. So the work of MacIntyre and the like is not part of a wave of conservative evangelicals getting all doctrinaire on us. As someone working in a poor borough of the inner city, in a multicultural church, involved in dialogue and community action with Muslims, (and as a dad trying to bring children up!): if my discourse cannot talk about good and evil, right and wrong, belief and unbelief... i will actually not be listened to and have (in their view) nothing to offer.

So, my persistent question remains, "where" is the unorthodox heretic/pirate located? It still seems to be located contra church. I wonder whether there is a sectarian DNA that betrays the evangelical-charismatic roots of the "project" that is genuinely helpful for evangelicals bruised by ecclesial certainties and authoritarianism (evangelicals coming late in the day to an exhausted and fruitless line of argument long since vacated by liberal sections of the church?). Many other people, and certainly the poor and the marginalised of this world, are looking for something rather more substantial from the church.

The Betrayal of Betrayal (or why being faithful honours the tradition)

I've been reading Kester Brewin's pieces on "piracy" as a motif of Christian innovation and faithfulness. I feel compelled to write my own little critique of some ideas and approaches that are gaining considerable currency amongst many of us concerned to see the church engaging in creative mission. Kester explores the image of the "pirate" as a fruitful archetype of someone who bucks the system, kicks against empire, and releases "goods for all". His argument is that the church is in a block (as Judaism was blocked prior to the coming of Christ; which raises questions in itself) and needs "spiritual" pirates who undermine the exclusive and dominating character of church. These spiritual pirates are the "new heretics", in the pattern of Christ, (the archetypal heretic?), for which the emerging church is an example of. It's not clear what the emerging church's particular heresies are, but St.Paul's stuffy purity is contrasted with the bawdy self-aggrandisement of pirates with relish.

Kester is a very eloquent and stimulating writer, offering a huge amount of creativity to the contemporary church scene but I do want to take issue or at the very least push for some more considered theological reflection. The espousal of "heresy" as a motif reminds me of Pete Rollins' work, also, in particular his books "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" and "The Orthodox Heretic" which explore similar themes. Again, Pete is a very engaging and creative voice but raises issues for me that we ignore at our peril.

I'll attempt to throw out some points and questions perhaps to begin a conversation that touches on complex philosophical grounds. What I sense in Kester's piece on piracy, and indeed in Pete Rollins' publications, is a de-centred viewpoint. Both are keen to articulate a place from the periphery that is "unorthodox", "heretical" or "piratical", in their terms. I'm reminded of Alasdair MacIntyre's assessment of contemporary society which has lost any sense of objective morality or authority; one that is working with the "fragments" of moral traditions. The arguments are pieced together, magpie-like, from sociology, philosophy, contemporary culture, with the occasional leitmotif of scripture (I won't even begin a critique of the cod-populist vision of Jesus the de-bunker of Jewish tradition, the anti-authoritarian on a mission that is all about correcting the wrong road of Judaism that Kester offers!). But this de-centred moral perspective forgets the one essential lesson of postmodernity: that all our standpoints are situated; there is no "view from nowhere".

What I feel I am left with if I'm to take seriously "the fidelity of betrayal" and a "plea for Christian piracy", is a moral vision centred on the individual and thus a "theology" that is yet another rotten fruit of modernity, (there are times when I wonder whether I should read this material acknowledging a wink and tongue-in-cheek at the hyperbole, but the gravitas afforded published books, my experience of their persuasiveness amongst Christians and the earnest hopes of the project (?) suggest I should be treating them seriously!). Kester and Pete are in danger of articulating something that is always and intrinsically "over and against" (the "empire" of the church). So where is it? Kester poses the question "what should we think of the Somali pirates", suggesting the global geopolitics of western oppression might give an alternative vision of who the real baddies are. Well, if you ask a poor Somali woman whose children have been killed by the Somali warlords growing rich on the piracy (for that is yet another side of the story), the answer would be a no-brainer. The point is that there is a coherent moral vision to be applied, inescapably, and we practice that moral vision in community and in our tradition. What i would describe as "an ecclesiology of iconoclism" is in fact licence for the individualism and self-referencing that i know Pete and Kester would otherwise disdain. The example of the shift from "pirate radio to BBC" and "Napster to Spotify" betray more than a whiff of the romance of the new, the trendy and the latest: a vision of consumerist heaven confirming my suspicions?

The perennial appeal of the "over-against" vision of Christian life plays into a necessary sectarianism, too. It is only in the obscure and the local that God's vision is played out, it seems. So we clearly should step aware from the public square of political engagement, international ecology and partnership with other groups because "establishment" is the real enemy!

Who in our churches are the outsiders, indeed? A question that brings to the fore the need to own our situated viewpoints. If you are a faithful old lady, comforted by Prayer Book communion in a rural parish church that no longer has any paid pastoral support from the diocese: you're entitled to feel on the margins. If you are a black Pentecostal in an inner city treated as an ignorant, rabid fundamentalist by the white, church establishment and the media you would justifiably feel on the margins. And if you're involved in a pioneering home group of Christians bringing creative, multimedia savvy worship in a non-heirarchical team leadership you might rightly feel that you're on the margins. Each of these would also have good reasons to be challenged about their self-perception. And that self-perception can be challenged when we own our part in the wider church body, hearing each other and being responsible to our tradition.

Being faithful is not about betraying, being unorthodox  or romanticising ourselves as latter-day pirates, Robin Hoods, Al Capones or whoever. What story are we a part of? If we own the Christian story, we have a responsibility to bless and be blessed by the whole church; to challenge and be challenged by the whole church. There is truth and there is authority; we just don't have the complete take on what that truth and authority is. My discomfort with Kester and Pete is in the illusion that their denial of truth and authority disguises the inevitably alternative truth and authority they project. Truth and authority that comes from I know not where.

Share the Guide

Recently I was asked to write a brief post for a blog resource called "Share the Guide" on fresh expressions of church. You can find it here and it looks to be a great, user-friendly, accessible way in to the subject of church planting in the emerging culture. The wonderful Beth Keith wanted me to say something about 360 degree listening that she's heard me speak about before, so I had a go at writing something pithy and profound, (isn't that just the most difficult thing to do?)

Coincidently, the Church of England General Synod debates a lay motion next week on the "uniqueness of Christ" and evangelism to other faiths. It's likely to attract some media attention because it sets up a potentially stark division. Doubtless the media version of the discussion will be a contest between aggressive evangelicals and soppy liberals. The trajectory of the Church of England is one that is inevitably more nuanced. The uniqueness of Christ calls us to speak of the hope of our faith, and the final measure of the life of Jesus. But that finality also calls us to peace and dialogue. It's a nuance that may escape radio and tv coverage, and sadly sometimes escapes Christians. So, listen carefully....

What Would Jesus Construct?

There are a whole mass of questions being asked in church these days about how we interpret the Bible, the nature of church authority, worship, mission, how we understand discipleship, even the essence of church itself. These are good and proper questions for us to seriously wrestle with.....It's never good to shut down inquiry or curiosity. A number of conversations, real and virtual, have recently been getting me thinking though about "how far" we go in a process of deconstruction. The thing is, a process of dismantling previously held convictions is painful and difficult, but a tipping point is reached when it becomes easy and pain-free to be forever dismantling. I'm not quite sure what I want to say, other than to guard against a glib iconoclasm: where the "old" and the "previous" is immediately disposable and somehow poorer. For many of us from an evangelical tradition, it can be so much more satisfying to debunk the narrow beliefs and naivety of conservatives; a satisfaction that leaves us with our own new barriers and orthodoxy.

I think that for each of us, the "limits" of deconstruction will be different, but for all of us, there must be elements of construction: of building our faith....If not then Nietzsche is right, God is dead and each to their own.

So, as a corrective to constant affirmation of what we do NOT believe, here are a few provocations to ponder that might balance and present what we DO believe:

- The Christian faith is NOT a matter of creeds and dogma (it is worship, community, daily witness, ethical lifestyle etc etc) BUT unless we can talk about the historic Jesus and connect our story with the life of the church through the ages, then we end up building a new "religion" (devising our own creeds, however palatable and "humane" they may seem) which is human-centred rather than God-centred
- The church needs to be a place of inclusion and welcome, NOT a place of judgment and exclusion BUT unless we can talk about the moral demands of the Christian tradition, we end up lost to our own brokenness
- The church is a place of equality where the least is the greatest NOT a place of patriarchy and heirarchy BUT unless we can model godly leadership and authority, we are denying the transformative effects of the gospel on the structures of human society
- Teaching is just one of many gifts given to the church and is NOT an opportunity for elitist monologues detached from the lives of Christians living and working in the real world BUT unless we build relevant means of discipling Christians in scripture and tradition, we are wallowing in the self-satisfaction of our own knowledge rather than giving it away to others and to future generations
- Worship is NOT just a time to be joyful and proclaim personal truths but a space to come together in shared lament, protest, struggle and mystery BUT if we lose celebration and the expectation of God joining with us by his Holy Spirit, we lose the source and energy for any gift that we may think the church has to offer the world
- God is God and we dare NOT feel that we can package and own all the truth about who God is BUT we do know something and unless we own that story we are in danger of falling into the worship of someone or something else, (a spiritual search is as much about unmasking what we all hold as most dear - ie repentance)

...I could add some other deconstructions/constructions. What do you think? Would you suggest some more?

Greenbelt 2008

That time of year is approaching fast! Late in the day, there's a music line-up that is beginning to interest me so I'll definitely be making my way over to see Seth Lakeman, Howe Gelb/Giant Sand, Jose Gonzales and One Giant Leap. Looking forward to the usual bumping into old friends, chilling over a cinnamon tea in the Tiny Tea Tent and, should I feel inclined, getting into the odd seminar and talk. I'm on duty in the CMS Main Venue talking about a fresh approach to the theology of religions on Saturday at 4pm (Distinctly Welcome - "No Limits, Just Edges") and talking about faith in the public square (Distinctly Welcome - "Christian Britain or What?") on Sunday at 1pm. Some time on the Monday (!!!) I'm meant to be leading a workshop in the new "Kitchen" venue on Christian community action and collaboration with Muslims. So come and say hello!

I have a belated confession to make that I hit the big 40 a couple of weeks ago. One prezzie was "The Poet, The Warrior, The Prophet" by Rubem Alves. If you like philosophical, poetic works of theology that bring in works of literature, then this is a gorgeous book. It's unclassifiable, mysterious and beguiling, and will be a book I can see myself repeatedly coming back to,