Re-imagining the Holy Spirit: Butterfly Effects…and all that jazz
28 Sep 2009
Last week I left off with the people of God historically seeking relationship and an experience with God through various means (the monastic impulse, the mystic impulse and the impulse toward sacred space). I promise next time to get right into our present context, but today, if you will allow the historian in me to emerge again, I want to venture towards more modern times but continue in another little exercise in contextualization. In this bit, I want to peek into the context of the 1960s following onto the present, but the perspective from which I will focus will be my own tribe, the Vineyard movement.
I agree with Phyllis Tickle in her book The Great Emergence, that the Vineyard movement has been one that has broken new ground in terms of freedom that has lead to a greater emergence. In fact, I might go so far as to say that freedom is a core expression of who the Vineyard is. Within my own faith community (the Central Maryland Vineyard), finding ourselves within the tribe of the Vineyard movement, we have been radically re-digging at the root.
[aside: when I say radical, what I am getting at is historical radicalism (from the word for 're-exposing the root') that can be discerned as opposed to the contemporary popular idea of radicalism which my friend Mike Barrett describes beautifully in his article Modern Radicalism vs. Historical Radicalism, from which the following is excerpted: "[contemporary radicalism] is called “radical” because it gets tattooed, writes edgy books, does podcasts, speaks at conferences (for top fees), and never really sacrifices much at all.” Mike’s article was in a previous issue of Relevant Magazine]
From “Free Love” to the freedom to “Give Peace a Chance” to the freedom of “dropping-out,” the 1960’s-ish generation explored all kinds of freedom and the consequences thereof (both good and bad). This generation was the context in which the “Jesus movement” was birthed, in which many “outside of the church” were radically saved through faith in Jesus and brought into new freedom experienced through the Reign (or Kingdom) of God in Christ Jesus. It was this bigger Jesus movement of the 1960s and 1970s that birthed those erstwhile faith community siblings: Calvary Chapel and the Vineyard. While the Vineyard has internally described itself in different ways, the most common one early on was a movement of the Spirit. Thus the essence I see as an historian for the Vineyard – birthed in the 1960’s generation and then also from the Jesus movement – is one of redemptive freedom; newfound freedom as a result of the good news of the Kingdom of God in Christ Jesus [and possibly 'exploration' or 're-discovery' rooted in the newfound freedom in Christ] Thus a movement of freedom in the Spirit found through the Reign of God in Christ Jesus.
The spiritual experience of God that the Vineyard often seeks to facilitate reminds me of the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart. Eckhart spoke of Gott and Gottheit. Of course, Gott is God. Gottheit is something like God’s Presence, Power, Anima…we might say Spirit. Gottheit is how we touch the “Ding an Sich” – “the Thing Itself” – God, or perhaps more accurately, how God touches us. As Steve Burnhope succinctly summed it up last week: God’s Spirit is how we experience God, and it is in His Presence that we experience His Power and His Reign.
The most immediate freedom that opened up early in the Vineyard was via musical worship. The musical worship opened people up to a relational freedom with God, and they encountered God, they became charismatic (as Steve Burnhope reminded us last week that charismatically-speaking, the Spirit initiates or energizes an experience of relationship with our Abba, Father, in Christ Jesus). This is a primary understanding, to have “God-with-us”, His Presence via His Spirit in Christ. Yet, consequently, the ripples in the pond moved outward to other areas, thus, bringing freedom to many and renewal to the Church-at-large and this age:
- through newfound freedom and exploration in worship
- through newfound freedom and exploration in the Presence, Power/Charisms of the Spirit
- through newfound freedom and exploration in ministry and ecclesiology:
o freedom to ‘come as you are’
o everybody gets to play – everyone can “do-the-stuff”
o naturally supernatural in terms of the Presence and Power of the Spirit
o servant evangelism (made widely available and accessible via Steve Sjogren, which opened up freedom for many more in the Church to ‘do the work of an evangelist’)
o releasing women in all aspects of ministry (consequently disentangling and re-naming the elements of power, authority and control)
o biblical justice (probably the most current newfound freedom being re-discovered and explored that I witness to: the environment, poverty, modern-day slavery, race, immigration, etc.)
I would say it is due to movements like the Vineyard (the Vineyard not being the only one) that many faith communities and denominations who previously were really old-school cessationists – in terms of an experiential element with the Spirit and the so-called ”gifts of the Spirit” – now are more open and free (to a certain extent) in embracing the Spirit and saying the Spirit’s empowerment has not ceased, but continues and is being felt within the Church and flowing out into the world in a missiological sense. One of the foundational elements for all of this is Hiebert’s application of centered-set theory to mission. Being centered-set missionally frees us to be invitational and welcoming in pursuing the things we see the Father doing and being empowered to join Him via His Spirit.
There is an issue and some historical context I want to flesh out a little more that we stumbled upon in our great conversations last week: the issue of discernment. One of the primary leaders and influencers in the Vineyard movement was John Wimber. Even after a long career as a jazz and rock musician, John came out of the Quaker Christian tradition, but when joining with the evangelical stream initially in Calvary Chapel did not jettison his experiential and methodological means of connecting with the Spirit via “dialing down” (not hyping up) and making space for God to move among us. We began talking in last weeks discussions (here and here) about discernment vis-à-vis movements of the Spirit and exotic manifestations, et al. Well, Wimber took a lot of heat and criticism because he wholly embraced the messy process of discernment in terms of seeing what the Father was doing in the elusive ministry of the Holy Spirit. He was a true Berean. While his preference went toward the Quaker ways of ‘non-hype’ and being ‘naturally supernatural’, when it came to the Spirit moving, he looked for the fruit of ‘exotic manifestations’…he looked for anything good he could cling to while throwing away the bad. But fruit takes time to see how it expresses itself through messy, frail and messed-up people…but waiting for fruit like love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, self-control, is worth it; and while they can be more immediate, fruit may take some time and discernment. Wimber got a lot of flak from others who were impatient with the fruit, yet I see Wimber courageously standing in to discern. It did get him into trouble, no doubt, but he took seriously Paul’s injunction to not quench the Spirit nor despise prophetic utterances, but to test and discern everything. My hope is that we all join in this communal discernment whether it comes in naturally supernatural ways, unpredictable moves of the Holy Spirit or exotic manifestations of spiritual presence. As was teased out in some of the conversation from last week, there are approaches or perspectives we can take when it comes to discernment. We mentioned two last week: 1. the metaphor of music, it’s much more like elusive and free jazz music. you need the discipline to learn to play an instrument (via praxis) and read and do music really well (via theology) to take up jazz and be released to dance around the notes but not get off on another sheet of music. of course, we are also talking about living music, music that takes hold of us; as Steve Burnhope thus noted, “This is taking us into space that recognises very well the tension between freedom and discipline, and takes both praxis and learning seriously.” Yet also, 2. in terms of discernment, application of what we can learn from “chaos theory” was suggested as possibly being fruitful; understanding that the name “chaos theory” comes from the fact that the dynamic systems that the theory describes are apparently disordered from our limited perspective, but chaos theory is really about finding the underlying order in apparently random data/events. Maybe there is balance in the idea that all of creation occurs between order and chaos. Too much order, and the system is too frozen to change . it cannot adapt, thus it dies. Too much chaos and there is not enough of a fixed basis for anything to retain a form and hence the outcome may seem like meaninglessness. Somewhere between lies a range that is the balance point, which permits all life to exist and spirit to express itself. The Spirit still moves upon the waters.the Spirit still moves upon us. I think this chaos theory perspective might be another point of departure for further application to our pneumatology and charismatology. To me this seems like it could be such a fruitful endeavour.
Throwaway thought: all of this historical contextualization has lead me to the conclusion that the Vineyard movement was one of the primary illegitimate fathers (one of several) of the emerging church (illegitimate in that most do not want to claim the child that is the emerging church)…but the Vineyard helped to forge the context of freedom and exploration for the emerging church to…well…emerge (I am so intrigued that what I hear from emerging church leaders like Brian McLaren (for instance in his book The Secret Message of Jesus) seems to take what we traditionally think of in the Vineyard as the ministry of the good news of the kingdom of God and applying that to new frontiers, riding up against that fault-line of the gospel and culture)…all as a result of the in-breaking of the kingdom of God!
so, more questions to spark conversation today:
- What does all this mean…what are the implications for the Vineyard currently?
- What are the implications for your faith community?
- What horizons remain unexplored with the newfound freedom in Christ in this Great Emergence?
- Where are the current fault-lines where the Father is at work and the Spirit is leading us to join Him?
- How have you or your church handled discernment at a community-level?
- One of the founders of the Vineyard movement – John Wimber – was such the practitioner and teacher that he became known for doing “workshop” or “clinical” time with regard to the Spirit and spiritual-expressions via the Holy Spirit. In some ways, I think we have lost some of this “teaching-while-doing” element vis-à-vis the Holy Spirit. What do you think? Have you ever been taught in this way?
- Can we apply a centered-set approach to the Spirit and pneumatology? What about music praxis and theory or even “chaos theory” as we seek to practice, discern and embrace the Person and work of the Holy Spirit in our emerging and missional contexts? What does that even looks like?
61 comments
Trackback
Comment by Jonny
1.24 pm on 28 Sep 2009
Thanks you so much for these last 2 posts Steve. It’s really helpful to read this, as one who is part of a Vineyard community and also as I have been personally influenced by the heritage of the monastic movement in recent years.
Tracing out the history of all this brings a lot into perspective and helps cultivate a health attitude in all this.
For Vineyard, I think this regaining of history is vital, as there is a danger for church movements from the mid-twentieth century to be a-historical and as a result un-rooted.
As for fault-lines, things which come to mind: east-west peace, homosexuality and how that debate is being handled with in christian circles, environmental issues, trade-justice, and slavery in its various guises.
I love your point on teaching while doing, I think this is key, wish I was better at it.
Perhaps a centered-set approach to the Spirit and pneumatology would be influenced by the ‘practice-of-the-Presence-of-God’, and cultivating an attitude of ‘what-is-God-doing-and-how-can-I-get-in-on-it’ (rather than a God-bless-what-I’m-doing mindset).
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
2.34 pm on 28 Sep 2009
thanks for your thoughts jonny, truly i am hopeful but challenged…where are you (UK, USA…?)
“Perhaps a centered-set approach to the Spirit and pneumatology would be influenced by the ‘practice-of-the-Presence-of-God’, and cultivating an attitude of ‘what-is-God-doing-and-how-can-I-get-in-on-it’ (rather than a God-bless-what-I’m-doing mindset).”
amen and again i say amen to that!
peace
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jonny
3.02 pm on 28 Sep 2009
thanks Steve. [oh and I'm in the UK]
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
5.57 pm on 28 Sep 2009
‘What-is-God-doing-and-how-can-I-get-in-on-it’ is an extremely apt description of the burden of my longer comment (below), building on my post last week, which sees the Spirit’s authentic activities, and priorities, as being discoverable today within a Trinitarian purposes-of-God context.
It seems to me that this is at the heart of what a reconstructed theology and praxis of the Spirit is all about (by which I mean, an experience of the Spirit informed by that theology).
To fail to do so, in a post-charismatic world, is indeed to stay within a ‘God-bless-what-I’m-doing’ mindset, in which we carry on doing what we’ve done in the past, assuming and expecting God will bless it in its old form.
I feel we shall require new theological wineskins to accommodate the new wine of the Spirit.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jonny
6.27 pm on 28 Sep 2009
Thanks for expanding on that point Steve (Burnhope). I agree a good theology/pneumatology is key to understanding what God is doing.
I guess this is a significant difference to my parents generation who found themselves experiencing charismata – and then had to work out what to do about that. As a result new churches and communities formed out of that, and they had to fill in their theology in order to help themselves understand what had happened.
To some degree I think this continues – but the out workings are different, so we now have people with a concern for justice and world issues, and entrepreneurial ventures like cafes and pubs. But, along side this there is the renewed appreciation of church history and further theological investigation and, I think, particularly narrative theology which is helping give a broader and deeper understanding on who the Spirit is and what the Spirit does.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Steve Burnhope
7.52 pm on 28 Sep 2009
Jonny, I wonder if part of the problem was a failure to keep on filling in that theology?
Now we have the promptings of the Spirit acting upon us in matters such as a concern for justice and world issues, as you say, we have to try to ‘fit’ that, which we feel is very much of the Spirit, into (an old) theology centered on ’spiritual gifts’.
Reply here
Comment by Ray Hollenbach
4.31 pm on 28 Sep 2009
I gained valuable perspective from your article, Steve, and especially liked Steve Burnhope’s comments regarding “the tension between freedom and discipline.” I’m trying to understand and embrace that tension. It’s about loving the Lord with your heart and your mind.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
5.58 pm on 28 Sep 2009
i think you are sooo right ray: we must embrace the tension…of freedom and discipline of the of the now-and-not-yet, for when we don’t we fall off into a myopic morass of not-yet or go chasing after the glorious theologies now…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jerry Bryant
4.48 pm on 28 Sep 2009
Your insight is well-founded having started with the Vineyard as far back as Kenn Gullicksen and watching and being part of the journey.
I am at present upside down in that it appears so many in the Vineyard, although they will agree with your thoughts…have lost hold of praxis.
Now having moved from Vineyard back in search of my Jesus People roots to embrace simple church….and then after that decision being recently turned upside down by Frank Violas “Pagan Christianity”…I have struggled not to loose heart that we will truly “hold on to that which is good” without “fire”.
Jesus still wants His church back.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
5.10 pm on 28 Sep 2009
thanks jerry. it’s good to hear from old school!
i get to hang with people like john odean, who was a pastor under kenn back in the day before coming to the east coast to church plant.
a funny thing, and maybe this is just my connections with people and my experience, but i see more of a return to simple church even within the vineyard…like the people of vineyard central in cincinnati, jason coker out in san diego, and bill faris in southern california.
the experiential learning and leadership in charismatic praxis – particularly in terms of the ministry of the Spirit – is so important…makes me think of that quote from the Lord of the Rings: “…and some things which should not have been forgotten were lost.” maybe the Spirit can use a humble fellowship to shape the fortunes of all…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
5.47 pm on 28 Sep 2009
Steven has again raised such a wide range of ideas and insights that I hardly know where to start. In picking out just one or two for comment, I don’t want to divert attention from other parts of what he’s said (so I’m glad people have already commented on other aspects – hopefully that will continue).
The cultural wind of ‘freedom’ that was blowing from the 1960s onwards may not have been entirely coincidental, in influencing the ingress of freedom themes into our Christian consciousness and church practices. After all, one would be naive not to recognise culture’s impact upon theology. Not, I hasten to add, as a compromise of the latter to the former, but a recognition that to be effective within culture means that theology must speak to contemporary society’s actual concerns (not what those concerns used to be, or even – in our Christian opinion – should be).
As An Aside … It is disappointing when Christians seem more concerned to say what they believe people ought to be hearing, and to insist on saying it in a certain way, rather than being concerned with what people need to be hearing and how they need to hear for it to be meaningful to them. Our calling is not to speak the gospel, it’s for people to hear the gospel. The concerns people had in bygone eras are not the concerns of people today. Our right answers are not right answers, if they are answering questions no-one is asking, addressing needs that are no longer felt.
In the context of ‘freedom being in the air’, then, from the 1960s onwards, it is not surprising that the freedom of the Spirit should have risen to the forefront of Christian thinking and praxis at the same time (alongside theological themes such as liberation theology, the emergence of which tracked charismatic emergence), particularly when part of that freedom of the Spirit involved the release of the laity into direct, personal, unmediated and fresh experience of God. NB the Sixties, onwards, were decades in which people sought experiences.
One did not have to be a theologian in order, quickly and readily, to grasp the essential essence of the experience of the Spirit in charismatic release. To receive the Baptism in the Spirit (by whatever term known) and a simple explanation of a few verses in 1 Cor 12 was all one needed.
And in this, we find both the great achievement and the problematic legacy of the charismatic movement.
As Steven rightly observes (see the bullet-points in the centre of his post), there many, many “ripples in the pond” – I might suggest these are all charismata – that are the direct result of the Spirit moving on the waters. I would commend us to consider all of them. There is an ongoing need for ‘faith to seek understanding’ in relation to the Spirit, in which the theologians need to help popular charismatic Christianity to broaden its understanding of the full range of the Spirit’s “ripples.” That is to say, beyond the visible, experiential gifts of verses 8 through 10 of 1 Cor 12 and related ideas, on which popular charismatology has perhaps over-focused.
This will be particularly the case if, as has been proposed, we are now in a post-charismatic period, for of necessity that would demand a de- and re-construction of our charismatic pneumatology if we are to maintain a vital ongoing experience of the Spirit at work amongst us.
I suggest that the Spirit has a much bigger agenda, and that a valid post-charismatic reconstruction will seek to identify and correlate this agenda in line with the Spirit’s own prioritization. Which will, in turn, be a reflection of the Father’s purposes and priorities. We shall need to set our reconstructed theology of the charismata of 1 Cor 12:8-10 in its appropriate place within this broader context.
I do believe there is so much more to come for us in experiencing the moving of the Spirit, but I equally believe he wants to be understood afresh. Given the Spirit’s character, I suspect this may be something he is waiting for.
Semper reforandum.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
6.19 pm on 28 Sep 2009
steve, re: your thinking on the fuller range of the Spirit’s ripples…which i agree with the on-going need you speak of…
i wonder if in an emerging and/or missional context, we see this happening more and more, as both an emergent empowering of the Spirit in the mundane elements of our lives (the immanent aspect) is coupled and embraced alongside the more direct revelatory/prophetic insight (the more transcendent aspect)…are we moving toward a much more balanced and healthy perspective of “both/and” that reflects our theolgy of an immanent and transcendent Elohim??
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
7.47 pm on 28 Sep 2009
I think that’s a really interesting way of approaching this question of the Spirit’s full agenda for us, Steven. That is to say, in terms of it comprising both a transcendent aspect and an immanent aspect. I think there may be more, too; perhaps, for example, we could say there is an eschatological aspect.
I am still reflecting on all this – your ‘bullet points’ of some of the Spirit’s more-broadly conceived manifestations, in your post above, have been very helpful.
Reply to this comment
Comment by david lee king
6.43 pm on 28 Sep 2009
Love these posts – very “make you think” stuff – thanks!
As I’m reading, I’m really seeing another question come to mind (for me, anyway): what to do with churches that are using the “new” (to them) tool in inappropriate ways?
Lots of churches where I live have a “praise team” – great musicians, singers, etc… but aren’t really worshipping. There’s no “spirit space” like you say above, no reflection time, etc. Some people ARE definitely worshipping, but it’s not because the worship team has that as the main goal.
And I’m not even sure those worship teams would agree with me if I said that to them! But your jazz metaphor is an apt one. Instead of that follow the spirit jazz thing, I think alot of worship teams, coming from a “let’s be contemporary/blended/whatever,” come from more the “classical” mindset – read the music on the page and play that. No room for the spirit, no room for promptings, no room … well, no room for God. I think they still see the music, even though it’s now contemporary, as a lead-in to the main event (ie., the sermon).
Long-winded way to ask – how to deal with that? The Vineyard and other similar groups introduced this great tool that CAN facilitate an experience with God (worship music). But many are using the tool … in the wrong way. What to do?
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
10.17 pm on 28 Sep 2009
interesting…and it makes me think of two things:
first: especially for musicians, i think this is better caught than taught. it is also a discipline issue, in that we practice in order to forget. we pratice the music so much that playing it becomes something like tying my shoe laces…i do it without thinking i am so practiced in it. at that point – once we learn to forget – we can embrace the deeper aspects and movements of the Spirit while still playing my instrument…
second: related to the first. i have a friend – marcus – who is a great worship leader. i was chatting with him a while ago, and he told me that he wasn’t much of a muscian…he sees himself as a worshipper first and foremost. i think this is an important paradigm shift for those that would lead others in worshipping: if you are worshipping and not just playing an instrument, people will follow you into worship of God…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
7.44 am on 29 Sep 2009
Steven, let me add a thought on that ‘discipline issue’ you mention. Speaking as a musician (well, not really – as a guitarist …) I suggest that that ‘practice’ you speak of is not simply ‘playing practice’ as such, but involves learning the basic music too (i.e. that is what one practices).
So, in David’s terms above, it’s not really a case of never having “music on the page” at all, but through practice becoming fully familiar with the original score in one’s heart and mind, such that this then enables one to leave it aside when one ‘plays.’
This is what you have termed “learning to forget”, I think?
In biblical terms, we might analogise this to: “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” (Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10/10:16).
That it is written in our minds and hearts enables us to focus entirely on God ‘being God’ among us and us ‘being his people’ in his presence, rather than “on the page.”
So, what we play is drawn both directly from the original and from creative developments in and around it. However, the creativity is fully grounded in the original score, and it’s not based on shortcuts, or laziness, in doing the hard yards of learning. Indeed, doing the one qualifies you to do the other.
I think there’s a very significant metaphor available here in terms of how we do theology and hermeneutics.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
7.20 am on 29 Sep 2009
Big subject you’re opening up here, David. To some extent, what we each personally find to be ‘real worship’ or ‘true worship’ (or even ‘Spirit-led worship’) will be quite subjective. The personal criteria by which we judge will be both experienced (how did I feel about it?) and observed (was that done they way I think worship should be done?). Obviously, both these will be influenced by what we think about the spirituality of the band/worship leaders, too.
Less structure to the ‘worship time’ does not in and of itself indicate anything, I suggest, although it can appear to do so (e.g. it can appear to leave more room for God) and perhaps it does in a way, since if there is ‘unfilled space’ at least it gives him a chance!
I think a better question – and certainly a bigger question – is why we do the whole ‘church service thing’ even remotely like we do it. That is, why do we not more often ask the ‘why?’ question about our entire liturgy. So-called new churches, especially new charismatic churches, really don’t fundamentally ‘do it’ any differently than ‘old’ churches. It’s still presentational, it still treats the ‘ministry of the (spoken) word’ as the pinnacle (in good evangelical tradition), with the music-based worship as a warm-up act, and attendees must like public group singing. So, we have ‘renewed services’ – e.g. the sung worship is done as a block section, rather than a hymn-prayer sandwich – but nothing really new.
I was struck by a couple of comments from atheist Matt Casper, who was ‘hired’ by his Christian pastor friend Jim Henderson to come to a number of church services across the country, to observe and pass on his reactions (‘Jim and Casper Go to Church: Frank Conversation about Faith, Churches, and Well-Meaning Christians’ is the book title).
Matt’s first comment was that all the churches’ services, despite covering almost the full spectrum of different church types – old, new and emerging – were basically the same, content-wise: “… the same format repeating itself regardless of the setting.”
The second was the killer, for me: “Is this what Jesus told you guys to do?”
To save taking up more space here, I recently wrote a blog on this elsewhere (http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/ – see August 25, 2009).
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
9.22 am on 29 Sep 2009
I wonder if we need to take a more more radical reimagination of the Spirit. Many liberal progrssive Christians inspired by writers such as Marcus Borg drawing on ideas from quantum physics would view the Spirit as the ‘Energy or Life-force that animates the Cosmos’ coupled with a stress on the ineffable nature ot the Divine and a panentheistic view of God. Such a view would lead to a different set of emphasis. For example
- a stress on prayer/contemplation and silence as a means to encounter God rather than vocal praise
- a recovery of feminine images of the God/Spirit such as Sophia (wisdom) as a counter to our traditional male-orientated ones
I speak as an ex-charismatic but whose faith was reenchanted by a renewal of faith experience which had led to an embrace of progressive liberal ideas
all the best
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
9.38 am on 29 Sep 2009
Certainly we need to consder far more than we have to date the ways in which the Spirit is at work in the wider cosmos (rather than just in meetings, or in Christians). That needs to be considered as part of our deeper theology of the Spirit. As part of a ‘both/and’ with some of the other stuff we’ve been conversing about.
Your two bullet-points are also both spot-on.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.03 am on 29 Sep 2009
good thoughts rodney; i really think you have pointed to something rather important rodney, especially with prayer.
it seems to me that just as in modernity, we reduced the gospel to four spiritual laws and a prayer to Jesus, we also reduced prayer to chatting with God. we must come to understand and experience a much fuller participation in prayer, and include silence and contemplation…
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
10.17 am on 29 Sep 2009
I wonder if a deeper theology of the Spirit needs to be considered in a context of a fresh appraisal of the fundemental tenets of evangelical theology that animates much of the charismatic movement…for example I still go along to a charismatic church but find many songs filled with lyrics inspired by the penal subsitution idea of the atonement which makes me profoundly uncomfortable (I like many others have deep misgivings about this doctrine).I realise this is a very complex question with many different responses! Perhaps a fresh emphasis on the practice of silent worship in the Quaker tradition opens up a wider space for people to join in?
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
10.27 am on 29 Sep 2009
Most definitely. Penal substitutionary atonement is difficult (I would almost venture ‘impossible’) to sell to people today.
My Masters Dissertation was on exactly this subject.
If you are interested in the subject, the Dissertation is posted on my website, http://www.faithandstuff.org, the last of those listed under ‘Some Articles’ (see sidebar on main page) http://www.faithandstuff.org/web_documents/dissertation_-_final.pdf
Happy to engage further on this subject (and on rethinking evangelical theology generally; I can recommend several books, too).
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.07 am on 29 Sep 2009
you are speaking my love-language rodney! silent worship is just such a rich experience for me…and i think your point is well taken, if we can take-off from ecclesiates: there is a time for everything under heaven, a time for rowdy musical worship, and a time for silent reverence; a time for joyous songs, and a time for sad laments…
in excluding silence and lament from our worship services, we are excluding people from worship and not inviting them to worship God in both joyous times but equally in a season of lament…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
10.36 am on 29 Sep 2009
Well, Steve Burnhope invited me to visit and I am very glad he did: this is a fascinating series and conversation.
As Steve knows, most of my time is occupied with the large but simple question, “How should we live?” In answering this, I try to apply philosophy, politics, economics, science and theology. One of the difficulties of this is of course scope…
However, blending these areas of study yields interesting results (at least to me!). For example and at the risk of proof-texting, Romans 8:20-21 tells us that the creation is in bondage to decay, which happens to correspond to the second law of thermodynamics (energy becomes less useful): decay is one of the fundamental laws of this cosmos. This re-informs 1 Cor 15:35-58, which explains that the new creation will be quite unlike the present. Of course it must be if it is to be imperishable: this is a scientific fact.
Picking up the theme above of chaos theory is similarly interesting. We find that complex systems are beyond mechanistic control and yet too often we try to establish just such control. For example, it has become fashionable to recite, “Think global. Act local” in the hope that somehow this will solve global poverty, climate change and so on.
However, I find I cannot “think global”. Without wishing to impugn those who believe they can, how could anyone possibly assimilate all the necessary information to truly think on a global scale?
We simply cannot. In practice, we find an issue against which we justly rail – the poverty of third world coffee producers perhaps – and then we take a simple solution offered by someone in authority which appears to help – Fair Trade coffee for example. Now, taking that issue specifically and so briefly as to deny an adequate treatment, a close study of Fair Trade finds that it sets out to entrench a particular socio-economic system which one ideological group favours while opposing progress, such as genetic modification. Unfortunately, millions rely on bananas to survive and bananas, it seems, require genetic modification if they are to withstand extinction through disease. Millions may die if bananas are not modified. That is, Fair Trade is counterproductive: it would be better to abolish all trade barriers and get on with establishing closer relationships between people, wherever they are.[*]
We mean well when we “think global, act local” but we end up making counterproductive choices, since it is impossible in a dynamic system as complex as the earth and all its inhabitants to obtain and process all the information necessary to act locally with anything like efficiency on the global level. This is the lesson of chaos theory and indeed economics of the school I follow.
So where does all this leave us when re-imagining the Holy Spirit in the context of butterfly effects? Provisionally, I suggest it means that we just have to get on with our lives, acting within our own sphere of influence, thinking locally and acting locally to solve the problems before us. We have to have fixed laws known well in advance to stop specific, predictable injustices, but we cannot successfully interfere in the dynamic system that is the cooperation of billions of people.
If tradition is correct and the Lord does know all things, then relationship with Him through the Spirit is perhaps our best hope of thinking and acting locally in such a way that, globally, the complex, dynamic system that is humanity on this earth comes to make spontaneous, healthy progress. How else should the Kingdom work?
I recently gave in and started reading Young’s “The Shack”. Around page 124, he makes the point that our hierarchical earthly systems bound with rules and control are a product of our brokenness, our lack of relationship with God. In this context, perhaps we are working towards re-imagining the Holy Spirit not as a feature of Sunday worship, but as He who can enable our society to function with wholeness and efficiency, day in, day out.
Steve
* For more on Fair Trade, please see for example this Christian economist’s perspective:
http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book437pdf?.pdf
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.32 am on 29 Sep 2009
yes! steve, thank you so much for joining the conversation.
i’m with you both in seeing and joining what the father is doing locally, and also in terms of creating control systems as part of our brokenness which gets us off-the-hook for being relational (as messy as that gets); just like the israelites, we see others running systems of control and want to be like that because it looks like “progress”…because like in judges, when God is king it’s messy…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
12.13 pm on 29 Sep 2009
One of my major bug-bears, Steven, is what you have rightly named “systems of control” in our church structures.
We dress it up as e.g. ‘authority’, ‘anointing’ or’calling’ (as reasons for having such prevailing hierarchy), and all are credited to God/Scripture as the initiator to give them the necessary credibility, but to my mind they are still essentially “systems of control” and second best – for us, as for the Israelites.
What’s the best? Being relational (as messy as that gets)…
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
12.24 pm on 29 Sep 2009
i think this is a major area that the Spirit wants to bring new freedom to in the church, as i mentioned in my bullets above: dis-entangling authority, power and control…in all leadership
but it takes the charismata of courage and faithfulness to tackle the issue and stick with it…
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
12.36 pm on 29 Sep 2009
Have you seen Brian McLaren’s article ‘Dorothy on Leadership’?
http://www.faithandstuff.org/web_documents/dorothy_on_leadership__brian_mclaren_.pdf
I freely admit to having tinted lenses on this subject, but we do live in times in which ‘authority’ (institutions, individuals) and claims to God-initiated hegemony are no longer accepted as ‘the way things are and should be.’
Well-founded suspicions of such claims are causing a major shift in how ‘authority’ is conceived, authenticated and practiced.
I am afraid (inconvenient for many incumbent leaders that this may be) we are going to have to revisit our increasingly anachronistic hermeneutic of biblical authority vested in individuals.
We must be aware that in the Ancient World – within the worldview of which the biblical authors wrote – the God-ordained structure of society (indeed, the universe) was understood very differently.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by steven hamilton
1.23 pm on 29 Sep 2009
the ancient mind is a tricky one to enter and look through. for indeed there seems to be a minority report in terms of God-ordained structure of society: to pharoah, there is moses (you are probably familiar with walter brueggemann’s “prophetic imagination” and “solomon: israel’s ironic icon of human achievement”)
there might be something in this to apply to our pneumatology and charismatology (and i plan to mention this again in a future post in coming weeks), but what if – as scholars like kasemann and dunn have put forth – authority actually resides in the Spirit, and hence in the charisma expressed through anyone in the community (‘everybody gets to play’). that is to say, the authority resides with the Spirit of Jesus expressed via spiritual expression and the act of ministry…thus it does not reside in a person or an office, but in the charisma itself…the consequences of which are utterly relational and communal: communally we must discern the movement and expression of the Spirit in our midst (locally) and it is through relationahip with God and with each other that makes this messy but necessary communal discernment possible…i’m still smoking that one in my pipe…
Comment by Steve Burnhope
1.46 pm on 29 Sep 2009
I like what you’re smoking.
Very interesting direction of travel.
Have you tried ‘reading’ 1 Cor 12:12-17 with that hermeneutic in mind? Might it inform the way we read the bits before and after in that chapter?
The “more presentable” bits of the body may not be thrilled to hear this …
Comment by Steve Burnhope
1.46 pm on 29 Sep 2009
Mis-type – I meant 1 Cor 12:12-27.
Reply here
Comment by Steve Burnhope
12.16 pm on 29 Sep 2009
Challenging and interesting thoughts, Steve.
Perhaps our ‘thinking globally’ should be defined more along the lines of ‘empowering indigenous others who are ‘local’ somewhere else in the globe but lack the necessary resources to change their situation without initial support from people like us’.
This would have application both economically and ecclesiologically.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
1.06 pm on 29 Sep 2009
On empowering others – yes certainly. The question then is how and the choice is as ever between intervention by force – since state action is always funded by confiscating real wealth – or setting people free to help and allowing them the scope to decide how best to do so. Certainly, it is incumbent upon Christians to help others regardless of the impediments placed in our way, but shouldn’t we ask for those impediments to be removed?
Perhaps we fear that people will not be moved by the Spirit to help others, so we stick to the coercive structures we have in place. The result is undoubtedly a system of barriers which dissuade one person from helping another. For example, giving requires the transfer of real wealth, but in a non-barter economy, that is done on any scale using money. One obstacle to individual, Spirit-led charity is therefore the obvious one: high taxes.
For the most part, we try to answer the question, “how should we live” by separating politics and faith, often using Matt 15:15-22, saying that we should “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”. However, it turns out the fruits of our labour, which are God’s, are in fact confiscated by Caesar and disbursed at will. We should not tie ourselves in knots over a sentence which was constructed to avoid a trap.
We should stop being pessimistic about people’s will to help others: we see attempts all around us, including Fairtrade. We should be optimistic and hopeful yet sceptical. This means, I think, opposing all coercive structures which go beyond providing that safety net which scepticism about human nature demands. It means trusting the Spirit to place in people the desire to be charitable, amongst other things.
And I think these principles are as true for church life as they are for the whole of society.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
1.38 pm on 29 Sep 2009
Only since the onset of Modernity has any society, in the history of the world, thought that there should be a distinct category-separation between ‘politics’ and ‘faith’ (religion).
Sobering thought. But people today would say it’s “obvious” they should be separate (this being the classic definition of a ‘worldview’ speaking).
Given the generally positive impact of evangelical faith on so many social issues during Modernity, though, it may only be in the last 50-100 years that this separation has really been crystallised in practice, as opposed to merely intellectually.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
5.28 pm on 29 Sep 2009
Sobering indeed. I just discovered the existence of something called “Dominionism”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
It’s one thing for politics and religion to be united in the individual and quite another for them to be united in the institutions of power. The idea that government should be by Christians alone fills me with horror: it is not as if we have our Christianity fully straightened out.
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comment by Steve Burnhope
1.29 pm on 29 Sep 2009
Steve (SJB) – fascinating Fairtrade article, thanks for flagging it.
Not sure I agree with all the points. In particular, I wonder whether it can really be said that Fairtrade is doing no more good for the farmers than non-Fairtrade (whatever its limitations may be). I would like there to be some way of evaluating what the end-producer gets (how much from Fairtrade product ‘A’, compared to non-Fairtrade product ‘B’) and how that price enables (or doesn’t) that producer to live. Fairtrade seems to be selling an ‘absolute’, not a ‘relative’, argument on this point, and it amounts to a propositional statement backed by a general “trust me.”
The challenge is for the non-Fairtrade product producers to demonstrate – if they can and want – their ethics, whilst trading with those who are vulnerable to exploitation and lacking in power. I’m open to hearing their case. In the meantime, and in its absence, Fairtrade will appear to have a monopoly on standing up for ‘fair’ forms of ‘trading’ with the vulnerable in the third world.
It is good for there to be more information on this in the public domain. The article is written from a fair and balanced perspective, even though the author’s views are not concealed.
You and I have both seen examples of well-meaning pulpit promotion of Fairtrade, not to mention generic denouncing of capitalism, bankers, etc. (scripted by the Guardian, perhaps?) that are painfully naive to anyone with half a grasp of the underlying complexities.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
2.37 pm on 29 Sep 2009
Perhaps the question is the extent to which any one of us can be expected to examine each step in the supply chain for each of the goods and services we enjoy, listening to the complete ethical arguments of each supplier. In the back of my mind I recall something about systems thinking and the need to have everyone worry about every consequence of their every action. It derives from Marxism if I recall but it seems to me it amounts to hating life.
An absolutist might delegate this to an organisation such as Fairtrade and buy only Fairtrade goods, but this is to close down society and abdicate responsibility. What if Fairtrade is not a basis for long-term development? What if Fairtrade kills off the banana? We simply must have genuine diversity beyond the ability of any of us to examine the ethics of every participant in the economy.
Which brings us back to the Spirit and complexity/chaos theory: there are practical limits to the extent to which we can engage with the world which means that each of us must do what we can on the scale with which we can engage.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
2.46 pm on 29 Sep 2009
I can’t help myself: here is another article which specifically demonstrates that Fairtrade does not have a monopoly on fair trade:
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/pdf/unfair_trade.pdf
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
12.21 am on 30 Sep 2009
It seems I’m always late to this party…my apologies.
Steve H this is a very nice post, and a much-needed perspective. Here are a few thoughts that occurred to me:
In the case of the movement toward personal freedom that characterized the 60’s the corresponding vice was a further atomization of society. People declaring their independence cut themselves off from relational obligations. The most obvious example of this severing of obligations was the free love movement. In other words, as we pushed toward greater freedom, we also pushed toward a fulfillment of the individualized culture of consumerism that we currently live in. The foundation of modern Usonian consumerism may have been laid by post-World War II industrial stimulation, but full-blown individualized consumerism couldn’t have occurred without the 60’s revolution.
As Steve aptly observes, this larger cultural revolution had its sub-cultural equivalent in the church, including the charismatic movement with its emphasis on an individually available, perceptibly real encounter with God. But it also produced the hideous sort of ecclesiological consumerism we all tend to vilify today. Think of it this way, the same generation that brought about the social conscientiousness of the 60’s revolution also ushered in the age of extreme consumerism and capitalism-run amok (the baby boomers).
If Steve is right, then there’s a great irony here: the impetus was a desire for freedom, but the outcome was a society of subtle fascism because it’s far easier to control people who are isolated. In an atomized society full of products that literally separate us from one another under the guise of “freedom” and “choice” (think televisions, ipods, and computers), people becomes far more easily pacified and directed. Think of it this way: If one were to devise a technology for the purpose of subduing individuals and creating an apathetic populace who bought and sold according to the whims of the powerful elite, I doubt you could come up with a better device than television.
All that to simply ask this: What is the fruit of the charismatic revolution? Are we more atomized or more interdependent? Is there an ecclesiological equivalent to television (that is, the illusion of freedom masking the reality of pacification and control). Any Biblical Pneumatology we propose must take into consideration how the Holy Spirit empowers interdependence among the people of God who are then liberated to be what they were created for – not merely disconnected for the sake of being “free” of relational or societal obligations. To me, that is a key distinction between secular freedom and biblical freedom.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
8.15 am on 30 Sep 2009
Excellent observations as always Jason.
In response to your question “What is the fruit of the charismatic revolution?”, with particular regard to atomization or interdependence, I don’t personally think that it has had a cause-and-effect in isolation, but it has co-participated (both reflecting and contributing) in what has been happening, concurrently, in both society and the church.
For example, the isolated individualism to which you rightly draw attention (atomized society) has not been caused by the charismatic movement, but the movement has imbibed it into its theology and praxis.
It was there, anyway, in evangelicalism, where the standard gospel message has lacked any ‘interdependent’ component for many, many years. It was inevitable, perhaps, that evangelical individualisation of the faith would give birth to charismatic evangelical individualisation of the Spirit’s outpouring. This was simply the ’spectacle lenses’ through which they looked at the Spirit when he began to move.
To this day, many ordinary Christians in churches up and down the country would not have a clue what we were talking about in suggesting there is a huge missing piece of our Christianity called the corporate element. They might ask whether this is a Catholic influence of some sort, or a suggestion we move away from ‘personal faith’ to a ’social (good works) gospel’, but beyond that, the classic worldview concept of something being “obviously” true (in this case, the individual nature of the gospel message and church membership) would cut in.
We shall need to work very hard to reintroduce to our message of what salvation is all about – and our pneumatology, for that matter – concepts such as:
* “Your Kingdom come” being God’s alternative way for us, in which we are called to be ‘a new kind of society’, modeling life under God and with God to wider society, with an open invitation to come and join us (the gates of the heavenly Jerusalem are never shut)
* Righteousness as being more than individual right relationship with God, embracing also right relationship with one another (and right relationship with the earth)
* Our loving of God whom we can’t see being reflected in, if not entirely defined by, loving one another whom we can see
* The continuing biblical story being one of God looking for a people, with the end-game (metaphorically, a City, where people live together), summed up in Rev 21:3-4: “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
Or Heb 8:10: “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
Or 1 Pet 2:10: “Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God.”
This is all part of one continuing story since the beginning; even the Exodus, a classic metaphor for our ’salvation’ in Christ, was all about being set free to be the distinctive people of God in the world (see e.g. Ex 6:6-8), a light to the nations, a city set on a hill, etc. (all impossible to accomplish as an isolated individual).
For more on the difference between a ‘personal’ faith and today’s ‘individual’ faith, see http://faithandstuff.org/blog2/?p=125 – thoughts which were sparked by Jason Clark’s forthccoming PhD thesis, concerning which he commented: “Church has been reduced to an optional club or society, unnecessary for Christian identity and formation.”
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
10.18 pm on 30 Sep 2009
“For example, the isolated individualism to which you rightly draw attention (atomized society) has not been caused by the charismatic movement, but the movement has imbibed it into its theology and praxis.”
Agreed, and very well said as usual. I didn’t mean to imply strict cause and effect – that would be grossly naive. However, I do see a kind of “ordination” of consumerism occurring that couldn’t have happened without a popular Pneumatology that encouraged atomized independence. My point is only that a revised Pneumatology must embrace interdependence and be mindful of the hyper-individualism that postmodern thought often imbibes.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
10.28 pm on 30 Sep 2009
Absolutely, Jason – completely agree.
Reply to this comment
Comment by steven hamilton
11.48 am on 30 Sep 2009
incisive and insightful as always jason.
what immediately strikes me is that the church continues to embrace the zeitgeist and culture of our times, especially with creating elites and “superstars” within church. i’m just waiting for the next “american idol” or “the apprentice” or “pimp-my-ride” rip-off to be “american pastor” or “pimp-my-pastor”, where a mega-church chooses its pastor in an american-idol-esque contest…ugh!
churches have utterly bought into the culture, and people switch churches like they switch channels. they won’t commit and connect with a faith community, yet they continue to live their lives of lonely desperation, because no one knows them. (understanding also that most churches i have visited do not create a safe atmosphere where people can really be who they are, mess and all…they want you to put on your “happy-happy, joy-joy mask on Sunday morning)
as i mentioned above, we have to dis-entangle our structures that are bound up together in authroity, power and control; if authority and power reside in the Spirit, then it is in the charisma expressed through anyone in the community (’everybody gets to play’) that authority and power are met. which is also to say: the authority resides with the Spirit of Jesus expressed via spiritual expression and the act of ministry; Jesus is our “Superstar”, not pimped out pastors. And this sort of pneumatological perspective calls forth relational connection and “knownness” and community and communitas, because it takes a relational community to discern what the Spirit is saying corporately…
i’ll need to consider a few of your questions, because i think they are really important:
what is the fruit of our charismatic revolution?
is there an ecclesiological equivalent to television (that is, the illusion of freedom masking the reality of pacification and control)? (ok, i have a quick thought/rant on this one: satellite church campus’, in which the congregation watches on TV a previous sermon by the superstar pastor, or if they have more money, watches on a simulcast…ugh!!! how can we disciple and learn to use the gifts the Spirit gives, if we can’t release others into a ministry of teaching, et al…instead of having a workshop on missional church and simple church, the last US Vineyard national conference had two (TWO!) workshops on how to set up satellite church campuses…i’ll stop there)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
10.31 pm on 30 Sep 2009
True. Video venues are a blatant embrace of a pacifying, spectator approach which assumes (dangerously, IMHO) that technology is neutral and that center-staged propositional truth-claims are the supreme form of discipleship.
I think you’d have to also include the sub-culture of so-called “christian” popular art: music, literature, and movies, through which we are satiated by forms of escapism that indoctrinate, control, and direct the flow of money for the creation of financial and political empires.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
7.16 am on 1 Oct 2009
Well said, Jason.
Is it entirely coincidental, do you think, that the sub-culture of Christian music, literature, movies, computer games, radio stations, etc. etc. has grown up concurrent with pulpit teaching that advocates a ’separation and withdrawal from [evil] society’?
Surely the divine plan of salvation and redemption involves rescuing and renewing the existing from within, though, not abandoning it and starting again?
If that had been the plan, then the Christ Event would have looked more like Noah and the Flood, rather than the Incarnation as we know it.
It may also be no coincidence that the society in which this Christian separation and withdrawal is most evident is one which likes to have a clear distinction between the good guys (who wear the white hats) and the bad guys (who wear the black hats). Whether in the movies, politics or life generally, only two categories exist and people want to know who is in which.
If you don’t have this kind of absolute clarity on who are the heroes and who are the villains, then it all looks very messy, of course. But isn’t that a better reflection of the state of humanity (and the church, if we owned up to it, or allowed people to own up to it)? The heroes are not as heroic as we would like them to be, and the villians are not as evil as we have made them out to be.
I know it doesn’t fit the ‘Mega Pastor as Super Hero’ thing very well, but isn’t that the reality?
Of course, if one’s focus on who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ follows a ‘bounded set’ categorization, then absolute clarity is absolutely necessary, so one will place a lot of focus on it (as did the Pharisees, with meticulous attention paid to right beliefs, visible lifestyle, separateness from sinners and religious observance). People have either ‘prayed the prayer’ and attend church regularly, or not. End of discussion.
Whereas, a centred set approach (which I favour), together with taking account of ‘direction of travel’ and ‘cry of the heart’, may see things quite differently.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
9.38 am on 30 Sep 2009
Jason,
I agree deeply with much of what you have written but please would you expand what you mean by “full-blown individualized consumerism” and “capitalism-run amok”?
I am convinced that if we want to make Jesus relevant today to everyday life, we need to explain how everyday life should be organised, or at least be specific about what is wrong with the system we have. I believe I am approaching being able to do that, but knowing more about Christian objections to consumerism and capitalism, or at least what those labels are taken to point to, would help me develop the idea.
It’s particularly interesting that you mention subtle fascism. If one extracts from the fascist ideologies the open promotion of perpetual war, what one is left with as a system of social organisation is pretty much what we have. Think about the western nations’ conduct since the end of the Cold War, and, very sadly, we find we are, after all, in a state of perpetual war.
Steve
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
11.59 pm on 30 Sep 2009
Steve,
I couldn’t agree with you more about explaining how everyday life should be organized. I would be inclined to modify that slightly to say we should be able to “demonstrate” a “variety” of alternative ways a life of discipleship can be organized – because 1) our explanations cannot be theoretical, they must be homegrown deeply in the soil of effective praxis, and 2) I think good pedagogy requires that we allow people to discover their own path.
I would say that “individualized consumerism” is the phenomenon of finding human identity in the consumption of external products combined with a conception of the “self” that is constrained by the boundaries of an individual person. I take both these propositions to be false and destructive.
I think the reorganization must involve carefully considered, intentional practices that counter these beliefs without crossing other important truths (here I’m thinking of abusive authority structures); material simplicity, gift-giving as an economic orientation, communitarian practices among small to medium sized groups, covenant making, etc.
I’ve written briefly about consumerism in church here: http://jasoncoker.net/tag/consumer-church
I must confess, the “Capitalism run amok” comment was a cheap shot. Depending on how you define it, I’m not so much against capitalism per se (which, we don’t really have anyway), as I am against neo-liberal policies which allow for the concentration of wealth and power.
I’ve written very briefly about a gift-oriented alternative to economic (broadly defined) thinking and practice among the people of God here http://jasoncoker.net/projects/a-life-of-gifts and here http://jasoncoker.net/scripture/the-purpose-of-the-gospel-restored-ikons-of-god (in section 3: The Means of the Gospel).
Briefly, in my mind all of this nests within Pneumatology because it is the Holy Spirit who gives gifts liberally to everyone for the good of everyone, which in-and-of-itself is an economic statement and radically re-orients our sense of self.
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
7.28 pm on 1 Oct 2009
There are so many interesting tensions around these themes, I expect we could make this a desperately long thread. For example:
- Gifts are good, but not a basis for a complex society based on the division of labour (since you lose the ability to calculate what to produce).
- Being an individual is good, but not at the expense of healthy relations; being in relationship is good, but not at the expense of the self.
- Private property and mutual cooperation are good, but not when they tip into greed and exploitation.
Etc, etc. Stopping now!
Reply to this comment
Comment by Jason Coker
8.17 pm on 1 Oct 2009
Wow great point about these polemic tensions! I might suggest, though, that the dark side of gift-economies is not that they fail to adequately produce. One could argue (and some have) that the division of labor is not an invention required for supplying everyone’s needs, only one required for the maximization of profit – and there have been rather complex societies built significantly on relational economies of gift-giving (India, for example). The dark side of giving is not “too little” but, interestingly, “too much.” Gift-giving in a society built on reciprocity (distinct from quid-pro-quo) becomes an extremely effective way to dominate people and keep them in subservient roles.
In my opinion, the virtue of a market-based society is freedom; the vice is independence. The virtue of a gift-based society is interdependence; the vice is enslavement. Greed is present in both.
(Desperately long indeed!)
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
10.09 pm on 1 Oct 2009
Sorry Jason, but I think you are dead wrong about independence. The market makes us unequivocally dependent on one another for the satisfaction of our needs. It is the intervention of the state which corrupts our virtue and makes us dependent on it instead of one another.
See also: http://www.stevebaker.info/2009/09/how-should-we-live/
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Comment by Jason Coker
4.42 am on 2 Oct 2009
I think we may be talking about different shades of “independence” (then again, maybe not). Certainly markets depend on widespread cooperation, but that’s not quite what I was referring to. In a nutshell, here’s what I meant: when I buy something from you I am free of all obligations to you. The purchase makes me the “owner” free and clear. The cash (or barter items) literally become a surrogate relationship. You now have no more claims on me whatsoever. This kind of personal freedom is what I meant by “independence” and, in my view, it is the inherent promise of market economics (hence, everyone can be self-made). This is how, within societies that are highly individualistic, market economies tend to contribute to isolation.
But, when I receive a gift from you I am obligated to return that gift in some form – generally to the community at large. All gift-giving involves reciprocity, and nobody ever “owns” a gift; gifts must always keep moving in order to maintain their potency. Therefore, gift-giving doesn’t free people from relational obligations like market transactions do, rather, they create new bonds of obligation and loyalty. That is the inherent promise of gift economies: not independence, but a community bound by relational interdependence. In both systems the promises can be perverted to create relationships of dominance and enslavement.
I would love to have this conversation further – if for no other reason than to explore each others ideas about how all this relates to ecclesiology – but I think we’ve officially hijacked this thread. I’ll head over to your link at some point soon to review what you’ve written and maybe we can continue it over there.
Thanks for the great conversation Steve!
Comment by Steve Baker
4.45 am on 2 Oct 2009
ok – agreed
Comment by steven hamilton
11.04 am on 2 Oct 2009
actually i disagree that you’ve hijacked it…and on Monday you’ll see why i think this all traces back to our emerging ecclesiology, our charismatology and pneumatology…really great conversation that has had me considering the possibilities and pitfalls…
Reply here
Comment by rodney neill
2.33 pm on 30 Sep 2009
Hello all,
There is a dark shadow side in the charismatic movement in the stream I was involved in – the serious abuse of leadership/authority practices in the shepherding movement which led to hundreds of burnt out casualities in my home location (northern ireland). Often obedience to the leadership was identified with ‘this is the leading of the Holy Spirit’ – a tool of manipulative control. I am glad of my individual freedom and will not surrender it unthinkingly again to a collective group.
I appreciate this was only one stream among many in the charismatic movement and there is a need to be part of the collective community of the church and respect leadership but the whole dynamic of individual freedom/collective participation needs to be a balanced one
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Baker
2.47 pm on 30 Sep 2009
Well said. God loves individual freedom so much that he came here Himself to deal with its consequences, not to take it away.
What is relationship worth if not freely chosen?
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
8.03 am on 1 Oct 2009
Rodney, I too have experienced this ‘dark side’ and I confess it informs many of my thoughts on pneumatology and ecclesiology.
I think the leadership/structural thing was influenced by Modernity’s thinking, and that some of the now-emerging softer, more communal, ideas of leadership are a reflection of postmodernity’s skepticism towards institutions, authority claims and hierarchies, all of which have been shown to have significant potential for flaws and abuses.
So, some of the ‘pneumatology’ you (and I) experienced (i.e. “the Lord has told me”, and “sensing something in my spirit” stuff) was a reflection of Modern thinking, claiming Ancient World-view biblical authority as its basis – you know the texts that were claimed as authoritative and timeless as well as I do.
I’m going to repeat a post from another thread, as it’s relevant:
Have you seen Brian McLaren’s article ‘Dorothy on Leadership’?
http://www.faithandstuff.org/web_documents/dorothy_on_leadership__brian_mclaren_.pdf
I freely admit to having tinted lenses on this subject, but we do live in times in which ‘authority’ (institutions, individuals) and claims to God-initiated hegemony are no longer accepted as ‘the way things are and should be.’
Well-founded suspicions of such claims are causing a major shift in how ‘authority’ is conceived, authenticated and practiced.
I am afraid (inconvenient for many incumbent leaders that this may be) we are going to have to revisit our increasingly anachronistic hermeneutic of biblical authority vested in individuals.
We must be aware that in the Ancient World – within the worldview of which the biblical authors wrote – the God-ordained structure of society (indeed, the universe) was understood very differently.
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
9.16 am on 1 Oct 2009
Steve
good thoughts – i couldn’t agree more
Rodney
Reply to this comment
Comment by Steve Burnhope
9.25 am on 1 Oct 2009
Rodney, if you are in tune with this way of thinking, you might like to look at the blogs (and join in?) on http://www.faithandstuff.org (advertising, again)
Reply to this comment
Comment by rodney neill
1.48 pm on 1 Oct 2009
I will drop by in future!
rodney
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comment by rodney neill
2.58 pm on 30 Sep 2009
There is also the whole issue of the stages of faith journey developed by Fowler and popularised among post-evangelicals by authors such as Dave Tomlinson and Alan Jamieson – a complex issue!
rodney
Reply to this comment
Pingback by Re-imagining the Holy Spirit: the emergence of a positive deviance at Deep Church
6.22 am on 5 Oct 2009
[...] ways and in exceptional/transcendent ways, as we previously witnessed to and mentioned in our last conversation. Also in line with God’s nature, if God is infinite, and if we can agree that the [...]
Reply to this comment