I have preferential option for communitarian ecclesiologies. The same ilk as MacIntyre and the postliberal clan. But recently I have encountered a problem with language of 'community'. Living in an intentional community I have to say that what 'community' we are pursuing is not the same as 'community' in the sense of 'the Christian community', or 'the Francophone community'. These are not at all identical in my mind - yet they do have some relation.
When I speak of 'church' I mean the very practical embodiement of Christians living in face-to-face community. Yet 'church' to me also means showing some sort of solidarity with all who profess Christian identity. But to use the word 'community' to describe both is just confusing.
ALSO: the notion of face-to-face relationships opposed to relating to someone not face-to-face (not talking about merely technology) is an interesting ethical question for me. How are we to relate to people as we encounter people primarily as friends ,acquaintances and people you will never meet.
Showing posts with label Ecclesiology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ecclesiology. Show all posts
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
my peculiar place
I feel the need to communicate that my stance on Christianity is peculiar.. here's a story I hope apophatically explains why.
In 1947 the Church of South India was formed. One of the largest ecumenical experiments in recent history the church brought together Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational and even in the 1990s some Baptist and Pentecostal groups. The sheer breadth of this unity is quite an accomplishment.
One of the churches earliest missionary bishops was Lesslie Newbigin. The bishop who was later involved with the WCC also inspired the Missional Church movement which has been extremely influential in my thinking.
Yet as I look at the Church of South India I am also reminded of this. There is a network of house churches in India that is showing to be highly effective in creating Christian communities and discipling people. Yet is not at all connected to the any church institution, let alone the CSI.
So how am I to reconcile this? On the one hand I appreciate the ecumenical movement as well as the liturgies and heritage of churches yet am very much drawn to the grass-root type stuff of simple church and in North America emerging church.
In 1947 the Church of South India was formed. One of the largest ecumenical experiments in recent history the church brought together Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational and even in the 1990s some Baptist and Pentecostal groups. The sheer breadth of this unity is quite an accomplishment.
One of the churches earliest missionary bishops was Lesslie Newbigin. The bishop who was later involved with the WCC also inspired the Missional Church movement which has been extremely influential in my thinking.
Yet as I look at the Church of South India I am also reminded of this. There is a network of house churches in India that is showing to be highly effective in creating Christian communities and discipling people. Yet is not at all connected to the any church institution, let alone the CSI.
So how am I to reconcile this? On the one hand I appreciate the ecumenical movement as well as the liturgies and heritage of churches yet am very much drawn to the grass-root type stuff of simple church and in North America emerging church.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Ecclesial Alliances
This is another in my series of posts on Peace Church type stuff.
The point of this post is to point to emerging alliances between Peace Church theologies, practices and organizations and other Church traditions and movements. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but a meager list.
Alliances:
- the thought and work of Walter Brueggemann -- > the reason seems to be that he focuses a lot on what it means to be the ecclesial community in post-Christendom. At certain points, in his criticisms of consumerism and militarism, comes close to Peace Church ethics on economy and nonviolence.
- Liberation theologies -- > not necessarily of the Latin American variety but the kind that do theology from the perspective of the marginalized as do Anabaptist theologians
- Black Church --> Martin Luther King Jr.'s transformation of nonviolent nonresistance to nonviolent resistance is especially impacting
- Postcolonial theologies --> any theology that engages with "Empire" and builds it's ethics around that subject
- Missional Church --> coming from the perspective of the Missions movement and Missiology this type of theology critiques Christendom ecclesiology
The point of this post is to point to emerging alliances between Peace Church theologies, practices and organizations and other Church traditions and movements. This is not meant to be comprehensive, but a meager list.
Alliances:
- the thought and work of Walter Brueggemann -- > the reason seems to be that he focuses a lot on what it means to be the ecclesial community in post-Christendom. At certain points, in his criticisms of consumerism and militarism, comes close to Peace Church ethics on economy and nonviolence.
- Liberation theologies -- > not necessarily of the Latin American variety but the kind that do theology from the perspective of the marginalized as do Anabaptist theologians
- Black Church --> Martin Luther King Jr.'s transformation of nonviolent nonresistance to nonviolent resistance is especially impacting
- Postcolonial theologies --> any theology that engages with "Empire" and builds it's ethics around that subject
- Missional Church --> coming from the perspective of the Missions movement and Missiology this type of theology critiques Christendom ecclesiology
Agents or Witnesses? Contesting ecclesiology
Some time ago I picked up for myself The Green Bible.
In the introduction NT Wright talks about protecting Creation as part of the vocation of discipleship. He expounds an eschatology of the renewal of creation and suggests that Christians are agents of this renewal. I want to focus on that word - agents. In technical terms agency expresses potency. In context it means the potency to bring the renewal of creation. Now this is not to accuse Wright of tying the full arrival of the eschaton to the full fidelity of the Church apart from God. It seems the agency, in Wright's estimation, is one of partnership with the divine.
The reason I bring this up is that the theological tradition I find myself tending towards, the Peace Church tradition, uses the language of witness. Now I will not go into the technical explanation of the this traditions theology but the populist belief it can produce. This belief is that we can witness - witness to the empires, to the powers - but have no chance of actually changing them. The witness is a positive thing, witnessing to the reign of God. But it does not bring the reign, it only witnesses to it.
The language of witness and agency, the debate between the uses of the words, may seem to be a overly detailed and nuanced academic discussion. It is not. It is a debate that refers directly to the faith, proclamation and praxis of real people.
Consider these situations (which are adapted from actual situations I have encountered):
- When confronted with corporate evils Christians shrug saying "this is a fallen world" and when confronted with the call to responsibility they accuse the confronter "of idealism"
- They can not connect Discipleship with Politics with any theologically critical thinking
In the introduction NT Wright talks about protecting Creation as part of the vocation of discipleship. He expounds an eschatology of the renewal of creation and suggests that Christians are agents of this renewal. I want to focus on that word - agents. In technical terms agency expresses potency. In context it means the potency to bring the renewal of creation. Now this is not to accuse Wright of tying the full arrival of the eschaton to the full fidelity of the Church apart from God. It seems the agency, in Wright's estimation, is one of partnership with the divine.
The reason I bring this up is that the theological tradition I find myself tending towards, the Peace Church tradition, uses the language of witness. Now I will not go into the technical explanation of the this traditions theology but the populist belief it can produce. This belief is that we can witness - witness to the empires, to the powers - but have no chance of actually changing them. The witness is a positive thing, witnessing to the reign of God. But it does not bring the reign, it only witnesses to it.
The language of witness and agency, the debate between the uses of the words, may seem to be a overly detailed and nuanced academic discussion. It is not. It is a debate that refers directly to the faith, proclamation and praxis of real people.
Consider these situations (which are adapted from actual situations I have encountered):
- When confronted with corporate evils Christians shrug saying "this is a fallen world" and when confronted with the call to responsibility they accuse the confronter "of idealism"
- They can not connect Discipleship with Politics with any theologically critical thinking
Thursday, December 31, 2009
A Textual Community
Walter Brueggemann wrote a great article for Theology Today back in the 90s. He relates the Old Testament texts to current ecclesial issues in an interesting, thought-provoking and classical Brueggemann way.
He points to the difference between modeling the praxis of communities on the Monarchy experience versus the exilic experience. In the exilic experience the community is a textual community. The experience of the textual community is a marginalizination and it responds by favouring specific. particular and 'peculiar' texts.
Yet simultaneosly there is an experience of pluralism and diverse interpretations in the textual community. There is still a process of canonization and a supreme appreciation of the text as authoritative. Yet there is no single, authoritative interpretation only authoritative texts. Thus (it seems to me) there is midrash.
Brueggemann links the experience of exilic Israel as a textual community to the experience of Post-Christendom.
I wonder: is there away to be a textual community as the Church in the 21st Century? With the splitting of the Anglican communion the fundamentalist-modernist debate is returning. Can this type of Ecclesiology provide a way forward or will it lead to other dead ends?
He points to the difference between modeling the praxis of communities on the Monarchy experience versus the exilic experience. In the exilic experience the community is a textual community. The experience of the textual community is a marginalizination and it responds by favouring specific. particular and 'peculiar' texts.
Yet simultaneosly there is an experience of pluralism and diverse interpretations in the textual community. There is still a process of canonization and a supreme appreciation of the text as authoritative. Yet there is no single, authoritative interpretation only authoritative texts. Thus (it seems to me) there is midrash.
Brueggemann links the experience of exilic Israel as a textual community to the experience of Post-Christendom.
I wonder: is there away to be a textual community as the Church in the 21st Century? With the splitting of the Anglican communion the fundamentalist-modernist debate is returning. Can this type of Ecclesiology provide a way forward or will it lead to other dead ends?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)