Guide to joining a new church...

Ten Most Important Steps

1. Understand the principles
   Remember, joining a church is primarily about what is best for you. The good news is that many churches now see themselves as glorified businesses. This is wonderful news for the "consumer" because "the customer is always right". If you are unable to find a church (Ltd) that completely caters for all of your needs, then find one where you can be vocally belligerent, in the hope that the church (Ltd) will alter its produce and services.
2. Find the "power families"
   Once you have chosen the right church that will service your needs, the next step is to seek out the people/families in the church who are part of the "inner-circle". These are usually rich, well educated members of the church. This 'inner circle' have quite a powerful influence over the church. Only sometimes are they 'elders' or 'deacons', though the best description is probably 'majority shareholders'. Admittedly, it can be difficult to be accepted into this group if you are not rich and/or educated. However, perseverance is a virtue.
3. Do not aspire to a Leadership position
   It is important to follow this rule. In churches (Ltd) most forms of official leadership (we shall call them 'management') are fodder for all manner of public criticism. It is far easier to remain a customer, and demand to "see the manager" when you want to influence the direction of the company. Ensure the management do not make the same "mistake" twice.
4. Get to middle-age as quick as possible
   This is a fundamental part of joining a church. It may seem as though the church (Ltd) directs most of its efforts toward "youth" and the "elderly". However, this is usually because it pacifies them on business matters, leaving the 'inner-circle' to get on with directing the company. Middle-agers will benefit most from many church companies.

5. Choose a house-group wisely
   This decision could potentially decide how influential you will be in the church that you join. It is absolutely imperative that you join the house-group of one of the 'inner-circle', for numerous reasons. Firstly, they will probably have a nice, big comfortable house. Secondly, it is in this house group that most business decisions will be made. The church management shall be informed in due course.
6. Learn the jargon particular to your new church
   For effective communication, and to look like you mean business, make sure you use buzz-words often. Naturally, each company has different jargon, and moving from one organisation to another can mean learning almost a new language. Where words such as 'river', 'presence' and 'flow' may be popular jargon in one branch, these can be replaced by 'fire', 'journey' and 'conversation'.
7. Practise your "mmm"
   "Mmms" are an extension of jargon language. It is the sound of approval, vital for showing allegiance to influential people. When trying to show particular agreement, a "double-mmm" can be employed. You should never do more than a "triple-mmm" - people will think you've gone insane.
8. Learn golf
   A very effective way of socialising with others in your new organisation is to play golf. Being good (but not too good) at golf will result in many invites to more personal social events. This does work better for male customers, though it certainly does not exclude females.
9. Buy a Cafetiere
   Coffee is the drink of church. Even if you prefer tea, it is wise to learn to stomach coffee. Furthermore, you can fulfil your charitable duties by buying fairtrade coffee. After this, there is no real need to do much else charitable. Charity is expensive, and hard work, and therefore it is useful to find short-cuts.
10. Do not commit
    This is the golden rule. Do not commit to your new organisation. This does not mean you should up and leave at the first disagreement. However, always remember that if the management and 'inner-circle' consistently fail to meet your personal needs, it is time to swallow your pride, and admit you may have chosen the wrong church. Be encouraged though, there are plenty more fish in the sea.

(Please note that this is satire. I actually think the Church is a wonderful institute. God loves, and lives in the Church. I hope, though, this article makes you think or at least makes you chuckle.)

God bless

Love will find a way?

Love

On the recent Delirious? DVD (My Soul Sings) of live tracks, there is a version of their top 20 song "Love Will Find a Way". The song portrays a blend of emotions, moving from utter repugnance at the attitude most of us have toward poverty, to the overwhelming sense of hope that love brings - that, little by little, love is breaking through people's indifference. In fact, it is breaking people. Bringing people face to face with the problems in this world, yet encouraging them that they can make a difference.

Chaos

However, the world is still in a terrible mess. The chaos we find ourselves in is seemingly cataclysmic: MPs claim for multiple properties, while millions sleep on the streets. People are dying from obesity, while millions die of starvation. World leaders pay billions to send probes to Mars (to send back more pictures of nothing), while a beggar is £5 short of eating today. Of course, what the world needs is another picture of a desert on a planet which is 266 million miles away...

In the creation poem of Genesis, there is an odd Hebrew phrase - תהו ובהו (tohu vavohu) - usually translated formless and void. However, it can give the impression of very chaotic - where תהו means chaos and ובהו means empty. If there is one thing that typifies the world today, surely it must be "tohu vavohu". We are in chaos. We are "empty". The emptiness is filled with material things that pull our attention from the real problems we can help to solve. After all, another private jet for [unnamed evangelist] is what the poor really need. Furthermore, if I contribute to that, I am giving to the Lord, aren't I?

Shat-nav

Pondering the Delirious lyric, I wonder what "way" love will find. Will it lead us into a river, like an early 21st century Sat-Nav? Will it spend most of the journey "searching for a satellite"? I have spent a lot of time reading great books, and hearing great songs that inspire me to make a difference - yet here I am, sat at my computer having done very little; still reading. Still hearing. When will we wake up? Love, show us the way. Press into our faces the issues that we have the resources to solve. Do not let us drown you out with worry over maintaining our riches, or affording the best cut of meat.

The Bible says that God is love. So I have confidence in the Delirious? lyrics that "love" will find a way. He always does.

Love Will Find a Way

Theology Detached

"I don't just know about you with concepts and words, but have experienced you, lived you, suffered you."
        Karl Rahner

Internal Affairs

In my attempt to keep up with current trends in popular theology I have become embroiled in the Emergent conversation/debate/journey/community (I use those words synonymously to mean "buzz-word"). I actually think I am more 'Emergent' than I would readily admit - which is a paradoxical statement to include on something published on the world wide web (perhaps I am more readily willing to admit it than I thought).

Either way, certain spheres of the Emergent discussion (there's another one...buzzz) appear to have become something of an inward looking dialectic where the primary focus is on argument, or discussion, or questioning over what is right, wrong or 'both/and'. The unfortunate reply (or comment) to clever blogs is often something like, "wow, that's really good. That will get my mind thinking today" and rarely,

"wow, that's really good. I must change".

The Emerging Movement started off so well: challenging beliefs in the hope that it would bring about a change in the lives of those who were willing to listen - though this is still the aim of some, I am concerned it is not for many. One of the big problems I see in Evangelicalism is that it has tried to take the monopoly on truth, regardless of reality (more on this later). Now I see a similar thing happening in the Emerging debate. Though previously admitting that I am more emergent than I let on, I certainly do not agree with enough emergent thought to label myself with it. Yet I do believe that the questions asked in the emergent movement are essential questions - which I suppose derive from a preceding question of "What do we do with all this liberal stuff?" (adding "without just saying it's from the devil"). The focus was on exploring faith; then it became about defending a movement; now too many are engaging in a clique, completely separating themselves from conservative orthodoxy - when it is conservative orthodoxy that needs to participate most. To be challenged, and to bring challenges.

Real Orthodoxy

It cannot have escaped the attention that words such as "unorthodox" and "heretic" are currently popular argot in emerging circles. To the conservative these words are very uncomfortable - which is why they are used so often, most likely! - and it is interesting to ponder why this is so. Many people are completely unaware that our current evangelical orthodoxy is the product of hundreds and hundreds of years of debate, reform, renewal, war, hatred, sacrifice, heresy, apologetic, love, revolution, research and controversy, among other things! In fact, there is not even agreement on what is absolutely orthodox among the most conservative evangelical denominations - with some opting for more Calvinist theology, and others preferring Armenian theology. Though I shall quickly swerve to avoid that debate...

If one is to declare a leaning of theology, it must be insisted that this theology is built on truth (of some sort!). Now, as I mentioned, I believe that Evangelicalism has attempted to claim the monopoly on truth, regardless of reality. What I mean by this is that there is a tendency to say, "well 'this' is what the bible says, so we must believe 'that'." - even if what we see/experience is completely different. The controversy here is highlighted by what is really meant, vis: "well this is what [I say that] the bible says, so we must believe that". Of course, conversely there are those who would begin with experience and say, "well 'this' is what is happening, so 'that' cannot be true", meaning "well 'this' is what is happening [to me, now], so 'that' cannot be true [for anyone, ever]."

Allow me to offer a question: Can truth exist outside of reality? If we say that something is true, but it never actually exists - then is it really true? The problem with the bible is that one can make it say almost anything (though that is really a problem with humankind!). There are plenty of verses which, when taken out of context, or even in context but misinterpreted, can be used to support many contradictory points of view. If truth is considered truth "for its own sake" and not grounded in reality, then discussion of differing views remains philosophical - and usually results in a faction where one group believes 'this' because it is "right for them" and the other believes 'that' because it is "right for them". Truth is separated from reality.

There is, included in this, the debate over whether Scripture is Ipsissima Verba (the very words) or Ipsissima Vox (the very voice) of God. Again, allow me to make our journey uncomfortable by swerving around that issue also! Perhaps that is for another time.

So, truth without regard for reality is not really truth at all. It is no wonder that postmodernity has rejected the metanarrative - the metanarrative existed somewhere up in the ether! Truth is relative when it is not grounded in reality - as is theology. Theology that is completely detached is not grounded in God, but in man's philosophy; it is protected only by man's thought. However, I would add that reality which exists with no regard for truth is just as dangerous. Theology that is merely a reflection of what man, so far, understands and knows is also not grounded in God, but in man's ability to experience - which is not only limited, but is different depending on the person. There are times where experience (or rather, one's interpretation of existence) is misleading and gives a false indication of what is true. In these cases, it is important to learn what is true in reality not in immediate experience.

Reattaching Theology

Thus, we are left with a Hermeneutical ordeal. How can immediate experience and actually reality be identified? Indeed, the task is impossible in many instances. However, if truth in reality is to be achieved then attention to both elements of absolute truth and elements of subjective experience must be given. If a person's faith is built on a whole set of doctrine and one aspect of that doctrine is proved wrong, then that person risks losing the whole of their faith. Likewise, if another person's faith is built on the sum of their experiences so far and they encounter something that appears to contradict that faith, that person risks losing the whole of it. I suggest a better way: let faith (and indeed mission, service, and all that comes with faith) be built on loving God and loving each other. If this is the case, then no-one need be worried about admitting they were wrong, because they still love God and one another. So, it turns out that Jonah was a parable after all - accept it and move on. Or, it turns out Jonah is an historical account, and new evidence now points to such - accept it and move on. People will believe different things. But rather than vilify those who don't fit into our particular "doctrine cast", let's celebrate that we have Jesus in common! Faith is so important, but it is dead without deeds - so, I would say, is theology that is detached.

I hope that one day we will be brave enough, and sensible enough to admit that we may not have everything completely correct. Then we have a choice: accept it and move on; or detach our theology and defend our position. I pray we choose wisely.