The ‘Wellness’ of Church?
15 May 2007
In the world of psychiatry, students study not just the manifestations and causes of mental dysfunction, but the idea of ‘wellness’, of what helps the well part of a patient become ‘more well’. In the worlds of education, and business, rather than focus on people’s weaknesses, there is the move to explore and develop people’s strengths. In looking at developing countries,debt relief agencies, look for positive attributes for assessment, instead of previous models that just measured the bad ones.
This doesn’t mean you ignore glaring weaknesses and problems inherent to the system you are involved with. What it does mean is your focus stops being ‘what is wrong?’, and becomes ‘what is right?’. Back to a medical example, doctors have had to learn that referring to a pathologist, doesn’t lead to good health.
And with that in mind, I often wonder if we have made the mistake in our assessments of church, in becoming almost pathological. We look at current forms of church, and church in the past, with an eye to the ‘ill health’, the deformations, the things we dislike etc. Then we construct idealisations of church in reaction to this ‘sickness’ diagnosis. Church becomes about ‘not being’, and we measure who we are by what we don’t do, and what we are not. Are we left with any understanding of ‘wellness’ of the church at all?
In Europe where the church has been almost deracinated (for instance where I live around 1-2% of the population are connected to a local church community), does this focus on what is wrong, or just exacerbate the problem. Does it give us more reasons to avoid the notion of the people of God in any missional sense, with our pessimism about church seemingly insurmountable, and our confidence shattered beyond restoration. Indeed church within the pathological vision might become so bad, that we might see ourselves as post-church to escape the sickness that is church.
How do we avoid the slide into a pathological ecclesiology, whilst attending to the very real problems of church. How do we speak prophetically, idealistically and passionately to the need for church reformation, whilst being practical and pragmatic, without losing the confidence towards action? How do we find the best of church through history, to take us forward into the future, without a blind naive sentimentalism to the past, whilst on the other hand avoiding the fostering of a negative and bilious cynicism that invalidates everything that has gone before us?
How do we navigate these dilemmas and arrive at a positive and enabling vision of church, that leads us to ‘wellness’?
For some of us in the UK, the notion of ‘Deep Church’, a phrase coined by C.S.Lewis is providing a mood to direct our reflections and actions to that end. It maybe finds it conjunctive resonance, outside the UK in the ‘Deep Ecclessiology’ articulated and lived by Brian Mclaren, and the Emergent movement/network/tribe/mode/phenomenon.
Deep Church hopefully values and affirms the many streams of what the Spirit is doing with the church in our times. Maybe this includes amongst many others, the fluid, and emerging forms of church, outside the existing church structures. Then perhaps the ‘fresh expressions’ of the inherited church as it seeks to experiment with new forms of church outside of itself, but in relationship with it. Then there is the inherited church and existing church that is seeking to renew itself, whilst we then find the streams of church that are trying to preserve traditions and practices in the face of cultural change.
And in all these forms/streams, the Deep Church focus becomes, not about what is wrong and invalid or that which is authorised by existing or new groups, but about the challenge of the shared context we find ourselves in. There is within Deep Church, a desire to recover a confidence in the gospel and scripture, along with the accessing of the spiritual resources of the historical church in non superficial ways, so that we might align ourselves with the work of the Holy Spirit in forming communities, that are living faithfully in discipleship to Jesus, in our contemporary context.
We are not wanting to re-package the past, or be fashion victims of the emerging culture, but rather aspire to an understanding of church embedded in the past, whilst fully engaged in the present. So that within that we might discover and build on what is ‘well’ with the Church Catholic.
Jason Clark
www.jasonclark.ws
(Jason Clark, co-ordinates Emergent UK, is the planting/senior pastor of www.vineyardchurch.org , and Ph.D Student at Kings College London.)
31 comments
Trackback
Comment by D.G. Hollums
6.58 pm on 15 May 2007
I am so excited about this blog!! Thanks for doing this, and looking forward to the future of this community/discussion! BTW: I am presenting on Deep Church/Emerging/Missional church discussion to several areas this summer (KY Annual Conference of the UMC) and a national UMC gathering: EmergingUMC: A Gathering.( http://www.gbod.org/worship/emergingumc/emerging.html ) take care and God bless yall…and still reading the book!
Comment by Dan Wilt
12.52 am on 16 May 2007
In some seasons of the Church’s formation conversations, the language of via negativa and via affirmativa were used to describe ways that we journey with God. In the former case, we mourn God’s absence and make our lives a lament. In the latter, we revel in God’s goodness and make our lives a celebration.
We may tend to one or the other, choose one or the other or even amend our ways by attending to one or the other.
I appreciate this post because I deeply believe that a via affirmativa in process, dialogue and action will renew our life as the 21st century Church. A negative way must be approached, on some level, for the reason that we must “examine our life (corporate) and doctrine closely.”
I affirm, endorse and say “thank you” for choosing the postive way. This is the way we have chosen here at St. Stephen’s University in the emerging conversation, wanting, as you, to reinvest the contemporary faith experience with the riches of the past, toward our emerging future.
Well done. I’ll frequent DeepChurch as a grateful partner, and will do an introduction on you soon on my blog.
Let’s explore things long ago forgotten, as those who mine the precious among the worthless. We must if we in any way aspire to reflect the heart of God into the heart of the world.
Comment by steven hamilton
11.50 am on 16 May 2007
hear, hear…i echo dan wilt above…let us indeed journey in the freedom and mystery of the ways of our Living God, in lament and celebration…in the ancient paths that call us into a new future of wrestling (Greek ‘agonia’) with life lived in the now-an-not-yet kingdom of God…
today, some wrestling with celebration:
utterly undone are our tainted tongues
tangled and tattered before the Eternal One
swept away in the midst of praise we are
- burning lips and eyes of light -
…such adoration in a roaring hush
before the Holy One on His throne…Jesus our King…Shining Spirit
the heavenly realms cannot hold Thy Glory
nor can earth contain Thy Grace…
yet the sacrifice of Your Anointed invites
…still who are we that Your very Presence would dwell and embrace?
Pingback by A Different Perspective » Blog Archive » Church Wellness
6.29 pm on 16 May 2007
[...] this blog is one to keep an eye on. Here’s an especially thought-provoking section from The ‘Wellness” of Church?: I often wonder if we have made the mistake in our assessments of church, in becoming almost [...]
Comment by James Mills
5.08 am on 17 May 2007
Jason,
thanks for sharing these important thoughts. As I read through them I was struck with a thought that, for me at least, is somewhat related. In the great book Sister Revolution, Susan Dunn shows how two revolutions that were fought for the same reasons (liberty, freedom, etc.) can lead to two totally different places. She compares the results of the French revolution and the American revolution and points out that the divergence of their results. While I cannot do justice to her argument in this brief comment I do want to suggest that you point out a fact that I think is worthy of carefull, thoughtful reflection.
You suggest that in the European context 1-2% of the population is connected to a local church. I would suggest that this gives ecclesial dreamers significanty more freedom to re-imagine church in a way that focuses on health. It seems to me that there is a lot of healthy, creative, redemptive work going on there that meets much more resistance here as there is a large number of people still trying to protect the unhealthy systems. This sets up a little bit more of a conflict situation in our context where sometimes we have to fight against pathological systems which still have a lot of life and fight in them. Sometimes, in order to even attempt to promote wellness, we have to fight against principalities and powers that are still trying to spread pathogens.
The only reason I bring this up is because I think there is a temptation to think that all critique comes from a negative place. I would suggest that sometimes–not all the time–critique simply comes from trying to be healthy in a place that is still overwhelmingly ill. I am always happy for those who have the freedom to think creatively without fighting against unhealthy systems. But let’s not be overly hasty to assume that those who still have to fight for room to be healthy are only being negative. For one small example, there are still plenty of places in my context where women are not allowed to exercise pastoral stewardship. For them to dream of a healthy, deep church may require that we give them some room to struggle, and some much needed support as they bring health and hope to the contexts they are in.
Having said that, I think that you are spot on that we need to think more about health. So I am not disagreeing with you at all, just offering another perspective.
Comment by Jason Clark
6.24 am on 17 May 2007
James, thanks for the response and questions.
I’m sure I expressed it insufficiently, but I am not arguing against critique of church. We need it constantly, and we need a spirit inspired prophetic critique of the church and the world.
What I am concerned about is that a pathology of church (often of aesthetics), and consumer choice replace that spirit led critique.
I’m sorry of you think I am being hasty to assume a negativity about people, that was and is not my intention, believe me.
My suggestion here is when critique becomes pathological, and defining. I am not wanting to drive people into assuming I am for a sentimental naive reading of church.
The Deep Church mood, is that we need a personal, and corporate critical self evaluation, and opness to others…I am desperate for that. And to see that go hand in hand with the dream and practices of the potential of church, church at it’s best.
So in what I suggested above, is not the negation of women struggling for support, for instance, I’m suggesting the pathological post-church reponse, polarises and perpetuates the problems of the church. Surely and understanding church constructed from a positive vision, would enable the release and support of women? I think our discussion touches on the problem that to speak positively about church is seen as the countenancing of church with all it’s failings. I’m trying to argue for the precise opposite of that.
We have this false dichotomy that sees being authentic as bein anti church, adn being proi church means you are against issues of authenticy and genuine reformation. We need to get out of this cycle, and find practical and prophetic responses, that get betyond idealism wars and pathology.
Ironically with so few people connected to church, I think in europe we lack any confidence in the idea of church, and it is easier to construct and identity that is seperate from the histopric church and current church. I would imagine in the US where everyone seems to be notionally christian, that a post christian response would gain more traction, or be necessary?
Does that clarify/help? Thanks mate.
Comment by Scot McKnight
11.19 am on 17 May 2007
Jason,
Thanks so much for this. I agree that there is a pathology set loose and voices like yours can brings us back to the point of it all.
Remember, brother, we are the Body of Christ — all of us — Deep Church idea. And it behooves us to treat the Body of Christ with utter respect.
Comment by James Mills
1.27 pm on 17 May 2007
Jason,
to the contrary, I am sure I am the one who was inadequate here. Your words and thoughts are very clear and timely. Important for all of us to hear, remember, and keep constantly before us. I believe deep down that all of us who hope to embody Deep Church long for the same things. The only caution I was hoping to bring to the surface is that there is a danger in assuming that Deep Church will look the same for everyone. Your language of being open to others is helpful here. If I am in a church that does not struggle with issues of fundamentalism, or women as pastors, I need to remember that there are others who are not as generous. The challenge then becomes how does one lovingly support the struggling, emerging Christian in that context while working to bring healing and restoration to the part of the body they are in? How do we fulfill our obligation to be ambassadors of reconciliation in these unique situations? Again, I think you are correct to suggest that we follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and not our own agendas.
I guess the point that I am really carefull to over-exagerate in my own context is that, as Volf says, there can be no Church in the singular this side of the eschatological gathering of the people of God. The world may be flat(tening), but it is still thick and diverse. And here again, I think Susan Dunn’s book, Sister Revolution is really helpful in illustrating this. The French Revolution failed because the people leading that revolution did not believe or create a compelling enough picture for diversity as a healthy thing. Their quest for conformity to a standard left them in a dictatorship that continued them down a pathological road for quite some time. The U.S, on the other hand, has a long history of diversity and pluralism that sometimes leads to some serious, internal (and unfortunately, external) conflict. To many outside observers our polarization is seen as a problem to be overcome (and indeed, in our rigid, political dogmatism, many times it is). But Deep Church can offer a more excellent way to exploit the diversity in ways that do not lead towards polarized conflict but more of a redemptive, dynamic, movement of God.
Towards this end, I think we agree on much and disagree on precious little. Keep up the great, encouraging, and redemptive work, mate!
James
Comment by Don Johnson
1.29 pm on 17 May 2007
Dear Jason; Excellent blog. I love the vision of “deep church” inviting us in, back and down. I commend to you Edwin Freidman’s last book “Failure of Nerve: leadership in the age of quick fix” in which he posits exactly where you a going, focussing on health vs patholog and the systemic push-back a leader will experience when doing that.
As a pastor of a traditional, denominationally structured building-bound church, I am trying to take us deep within the context we have been given. Sometimes the hunger for depth hop-scotches across 500 years to the Reformation and into pre-reformation ecclesiology and liturgics. It’s as if we are kind of embarassed about what our parents and grandparents did with church and all the denominational clutter that they helped create. I’m not usre it’s all bad. But that could be because I’m a bit stuck myself. Keep pushing!
Comment by Jason Clark
2.02 pm on 17 May 2007
Thanks for the heads up on that book Don. Jason.
Comment by Chuck Anderson
3.03 pm on 17 May 2007
Jason,
Finally someone has articulated what I have been struggling to name within my own soul! I deeply desire more for/from Church, and so often find myself in a quagmire of cynicism and (sometimes) outright revulsion - and yet at the same time I know in the core of my being that “there’s no place like home” - and this is it.
The last thing I want to do is go out and start a new church/denomination/flavor of the month - and yet it is so hard within my own context of American-suburban-white-wealthy community (and Church) to be a voice for positive change. Negativity is easy - but usually counterproductive.
Thanks to all of you for the book recommendations - I’ll add them to my reading list as well.
Comment by Jason Clark
3.11 pm on 17 May 2007
Chuck, so glad it resonated with you :-) Jason.
Comment by Dan Wilt
4.32 pm on 17 May 2007
Resonating well in many corners, Jason. Given my own arena of attention, I would greatly enjoy a DeepChurch rumination on the worship expression conversation, given our shared UK/North American context, that would further the ideas above.
In part, the emerging worship conversation is halting in the realms of practice, and in some cases, novelty wearing thin. I’m interested in furthering the DeepChurch mood through intentional worship expression reformation in the contemporary arena, and thus far it continues to be a stumbling forward in praxis that still seems to be somewhat superficially short-sighted (both backward and forward) on many accounts.
Could we further the DeepChurch plot in the arena of worship praxis at some point? In my mind, we are getting back once again to the essential worldview that guides our practice, and even reforming practice. To loosen one Jenga block, would indeed tilt the tower - and yet, sometimes we must work backward, recognizing that the practices of worship are shaping the worldview as well as vice versa (classic lex credendi lex orandi, lex orandi lex credendi) (”the rule of belief guides the rule of prayer or expression of that belief, and the rule of prayer and expression guides the rule of belief”).
Dan
The Institute Of Contemporary And Emerging Worship Studies
St. Stephen’s University
Comment by Bob Luhn
4.53 pm on 17 May 2007
I so appreciate this whole Deep Church conversation. I have been a Nazarene pastor for 34 years( 27 years in my current, rural church) and have never heard of the deep church concept until this morning. i hesitate to comment because this discussion is so new but it seems like it is so easy for us to focus on either the health or ill health of the church and lose sight of intimate relationship Jesus longs to have with us. I know He works corporately through the Body but when I fixate on my local expression of the church I can get depressed or frustrated very easily. But when I focus on my walk with Jesus somehow He loves people through me and His Kingdom takes shape. After years of focusing on both church growth then church health I’ve been sensing Jesus asking me one question: Am I enough for you?
Bob Luhn
Othello,WA Nazarene Church
Comment by Jay Clark
5.28 pm on 17 May 2007
Jason,
Thanks for your article. Spot on. God will use it in some issues I’m dealing with at church.
Blessings.
Jay Clark
Arlington, Texas
Comment by Bob Henderson
8.03 pm on 17 May 2007
Jason:
As one who has struggled, written, engaged in endless conversations on the essence of the church, your comments on Deep Church were a godsend–most helpful. A year or so ago a book of mine was published (ENCHANTED COMMUNITY: JOURNEY INTO THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH) in which I engaged in a conversation with a millennial friend who was struggling with what to do with his questions about discipleship and church participation. I was forced to rethink a whole lot of things I had swept under the run for a half century. My question always comes back to the essence of the church: What is its purpose in the design of God? How is it a demonstration of the gospel of the kingdom of God? What are the signs of its authenticity? The book and the conversation ended with many unanswered questions and many avenues to pursue. My incomplete conclusion is that the church is the human community as God intended it, reconciled to the Triune God, and recreated into redemptive, interanimating life together in which everyone has a name and a face and a story, etc. — which somehow gets lost in large, impersonal religious institutions as they have become (Christendom and all of that.) I like the Deep Church provocation.
Maybe the ‘teleology’ of the church — not it’s what, but its why — is what I am always chewing on. I think one has to know why the church exists in the plan of God before one can deal adequately with its ‘what?’ Does its form provide an adequate wineskin for its ‘why?’ I’m still working on it, and in conversation with a bunch of alert young minds in my community (in our traditional church) here in the states. Thanks for provoking me with you comments. Keep it up.
Bob Henderson
Atlanta, GA Presbyterian Church
Comment by Emily Fischer
3.23 am on 18 May 2007
Jason and all,
Thank you for opening this conversation regarding deep church. I am a current student of theology and ecclesiology, looking toward seminary… and I find such intelligent, passionate conversations of “healthy church” quite formative as I contemplate my place in God’s redemptive kingdom work, both as a leader and participant. It strikes me as none other than divine work that so many of us (often more than we realize, I imagine) are tracking along the same thought lines, and I particularly appreciate the place for women as equals within this conversation. I have noticed a lack of women voices within discussions, however, and I hope to offer my voice as we embark on this strangely wonderful calling toward re-imagining God’s purpose for church. Thanks again, this short moment of blogging has enlivened my spirit already! Peace. Emily Fischer, Arlington, SD
Comment by Jason Clark
6.29 am on 18 May 2007
Dan,
That would be a helpful conversation, let’s try that here in a future post if you’re up for it? Maybe you could write a post and use it for an open discussion on that topic?
If Charistmatic worship was a reaction to the sacramental and liturgical woprship that lacked immediacy, we have to be careful that use of liturgy isn’t done in a superficial/pastiche manor.
After charismatic renewal we need a sacramental renewal. How we can explore that is a journey I am very interested in.
Comment by Jason Clark
6.32 am on 18 May 2007
Bob, thanks for jumping in!
Your comment made me think again that Deep Church, is about enabling a view of church that is about the ‘wellness’ of church in it’s many forms in history, a view that enable a really prophetic examination of where it needs to reform, rather than a pathological response.
There is much wrong with church, we just need to see that and address it through a positive vision of church, rather than a patholigical one.
Comment by Jason Clark
6.33 am on 18 May 2007
Bob H, thanks for sharing some of your story, looking forward to your comments.
Comment by Jason Clark
6.34 am on 18 May 2007
Emily, thanks for taking the time to comment, and it will be great to interact with you and learn with you here :-)
Comment by helenmhall
10.38 am on 18 May 2007
Jason, I’ve noticed the new emphasis on ‘positive psychology’ - it’s a great analogy and it really does work.
Finding what already works encourages people and makes life easier for them because they already know they can do it. Staying as connected as possible with the historic church in a way that at the same time gives freedom to incorporate helpful change seems good also.
At Off The Map we ‘catch, blame and tell’ - we do our best to catch people doing something well, blame them (tell them) and then tell others. It’s the same principle.
People who are affirmed for what they’re doing well are energized and go at it with more passion; and that sort of dynamic often resolves a lot of problems because an energized church is going to keep positive momentum and a positive spirit. It will make it a fun place for insiders and it will attract outsiders.
If I think about what draws me it’s happy excited people (who welcome outsiders to join in what they’re excited about). I notice how engaged they are before I notice other things. I want to be like them.
Comment by Helen
10.40 am on 18 May 2007
p.s. the above comment was mine
Comment by Jason
11.11 am on 18 May 2007
Helen, great to hear from you over here :-)
I was reading Ephesians 1 today, in some prep for teaching on church and kingdom, and saw how Paul has such a constructive vision of church, that he then uses to address the very real problems and challenges for church.
I’m sure the energy you have sensed is the power Paul references in Eph 1:19-20. Or at least it’s my hope that it is!
Comment by Helen
11.55 am on 18 May 2007
Yes, Paul’s letters do convey that he was very passionate and put lots of energy into mentoring and helping the new churches he wrote to.
Also that he cared a *lot*. I’m struck by these verses, which show how much.
Gal 4:19-20 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!
2 Cor 11:29 Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn ?
I suppose the challenge is to balance caring that much with staying positive and hopeful.
I’ve always thought that believing in the sovereignty of God should help people let go and have fun and not feel overly responsible for creating church that is the way God would like. Responsible, yes - overly responsible - no, because that just weighs people down. Imo that can’t be the easy and light burden and yoke Jesus talked about.
Comment by Paul
1.39 am on 19 May 2007
Thanks DG, let Jase or me know if you would like to contribute anything to this site by way of writing an article based on your presentations?
Comment by Paul
1.40 am on 19 May 2007
thanks steve for your support and your word craft!
Comment by Paul
1.45 am on 19 May 2007
Hi Emily, we would welcome your participation and voice in this site. If you would like to join the guest authors and write for this site then please let me know. We would love to hear more of your thoughts… :)
Comment by Emily Fischer
5.29 pm on 17 Jun 2007
Thanks for the invitation, Paul! I am currently embarking on a year of service through Americorps, and following this I shall begin Seminary… I am continually thinking about the life of the Church at large, and I look forward to learning from the Jesuit community in which I shall be serving next year. Perhaps I shall feel more “ready” to contribute my thoughts (which are currently largely undeveloped) in a year’s time. I continue to look forward to reading and learning! :)
Comment by Paul
11.29 pm on 21 Jun 2007
thanks emily, in a year will be soon enough :) I hope you have a great year and look forward to hearing from you when you can join in the conversation
Comment by D.G. Hollums
8.20 pm on 19 May 2007
Got your email Paul, thank you dearly, and I will respond when I have a little more time. Thank you again!
Comments are now closed.