Blah...Manchester. Faithful Betrayals with Pete Rollins

Faithful Betrayals: the ir/religious nature of Christianity

What if one of the core elements of Christianity lay in a demand that we betray it, while the ultimate act of affirming God required the forsaking of God? And what if fidelity to the Judeo-Christian scriptures demanded their renunciation? In short, what if the only way of finding faith involves betraying it with a kiss?

By employing the insights of apophatic theology and deconstructive theory this seminar seeks to explore the subversive and clandestine nature of a Christianity that dwells within religious institutions while simultaneously undermining them. Here we will explore the Promethean nature of a faith which attempts to live up to the name bestowed upon it by the divine: Israel, one who wrestles with God.

Peter Rollins is the founding member of Ikon and a freelance lecturer in philosophy. He is the author of the recently published How (Not) to Speak of God (SPCK/Paraclete) acclaimed by Brian McLaren as ‘one of the most rewarding books of theology he has read in ten years.’

blah...manchester is a series of conversations hosted by CMS in partnership with The Church Army on mission, worship, church and Christianity in today’s rapidly changing culture. It’s a time to keep listening, chatting and reflecting as God beckons us into the future.

Monday 12th June
6:30-8:30pm
Drinks and refreshments provided
Admission free
Venue: Nexus. For directions see: http://www.nexusonline.org.uk/contactus.htm

Drinks served from 6:30
Input begins at 7:00

Let me know if you're coming

Technorati Tags: Blah..., mission, theology

Comments

[Richard Sudworth]

Ben: looks fascinating and would love to be there. However, I'm not sure the cause of a creative engagement between church and culture is best served by such an esoteric description of a mission based discussion event. Submitted respectfully...wondering whether a conversation needs to be opened up about the dangers/tendencies of emerging church to be intellectually exclusive.

[benedson]

I'm sure that it will be fascinating, we'll see if the esoteric description matches the event! I think that there is a place for philosohpy within the emerging church. We need people like Pete to stimulate our thinking so that we can engage missiologically with people on a philosphical level - if that is where they're at.

The emerging church does have a tendency to be intellectually exclusive, I think that this is partly due to it's young age, perhaps we should be wiser with our knowledge. However, I think we should be celebrating that people want to think with theological rigour. If we do not then we will be unfaithful to our mission of re-imagining church in contemporary culture.

[Richard Sudworth]

Thanks for the reply Ben...I've absolutely no problem with an engagement with philosophy and would completely endorse the need for theological rigour: the challenge is to know how and when to express those philosophies and theologies. It's one thing to do the personal reading, to publish an article or write an academic text...It's another to use the same kind of language in a forum that is aiming to mobilize practitioners. That is, unless we only want a certain kind of practitioner and practice. I say this as someone who enjoys the brain stuff...Let's just take care of the messages we send out. "Moot" used to be subtitled "A Nascent Community" until a wonderfully awkward person pointed out how pretentious and exclusivist that subtitle was...Nothing wrong with Moot thinking, nor with the word "nascent". A lot wrong with where it appeared. This is a missional point. Thereis also an ecclesiological point as to how the emerging church is often seen "out there" in the wider church community: white, middle class, intellectual, self-indulgent and divorced from the practicalities of messy congregations and messy communities. That's a travesty of a judgment but one that many people feel, and for the sake of good ministry and good people getting heard and birthing stuff elsewhere, let's not add to their ammunition.

[Richard Sudworth]

Thanks for the reply Ben...I've absolutely no problem with an engagement with philosophy and would completely endorse the need for theological rigour: the challenge is to know how and when to express those philosophies and theologies. It's one thing to do the personal reading, to publish an article or write an academic text...It's another to use the same kind of language in a forum that is aiming to mobilize practitioners. That is, unless we only want a certain kind of practitioner and practice. I say this as someone who enjoys the brain stuff...Let's just take care of the messages we send out. "Moot" used to be subtitled "A Nascent Community" until a wonderfully awkward person pointed out how pretentious and exclusivist that subtitle was...Nothing wrong with Moot thinking, nor with the word "nascent". A lot wrong with where it appeared. This is a missional point. Thereis also an ecclesiological point as to how the emerging church is often seen "out there" in the wider church community: white, middle class, intellectual, self-indulgent and divorced from the practicalities of messy congregations and messy communities. That's a travesty of a judgment but one that many people feel, and for the sake of good ministry and good people getting heard and birthing stuff elsewhere, let's not add to their ammunition.

[Ben Edson]

Yeah, I accept your points...particuarly about perceptions of the emerging church. However, do we always go for the lowest common denominator in an attempt to be inclusive and to counter peoples misconceptions? By doing so surely we'll exclude those who want something more focused...it's about trying to achieve a balance between accesibility and definition. Anyway bookings are already looking good! So people seem to want it!!!

Anyway, when are you gonna get blah...brum going?

[Richard Sudworth]

...I'll leave the discussion there but I do think it's one that has some mileage and is worth exploring at another time. It does look like it'll be an interesting BLAH evening and genuinely I would like to have been there. We're going to launch BLAH Brum in September, announcing this at the Brum leg of the Ryan Bolger tour...see you around!

[Steven Harris]

Hi Ben,

Last night was my first visit to Sanctus and just wanted to let you know I had a really good time! Take care.

Steven Harris

[RODNEY NEILL]

middle class, intellectual, self-indulgent and divorced from the practicalities of messy congregations and messy communities.

Hello my name is Rodney Neill - I have been in and out of Ikon in Belfast for the last 3 years.

I have a lot of sympathy for the above mentioned perception of those involved in the emerging church! Whilst I enjoy theological discussions at events in Ikon like the Last Supper the language of Derrida,
negative theology, deconstruction etc tends to appeal to only to a very small university educated (many ex theology graduates) constituency and does not connect with the vast number of ordinary people!!!

If the emerging church is serious about mission to people it will have to grapple with these issues or this perception will remain!!!!!

Rodney

[Mark Berry]

Maybe I am being to simplistic... but... why does it have to be either or? One can hold intellectual and theological discourse which informs the missional instinct and be able to engage with the same ideas/concepts/truths in different contexts... in education we are constantly aware of different learning styles why are we less aware of the different ways in which God speaks? Secondly if we really are going to de-construct this whole religion business... i.e. not simply see 'Emerging Church' (or whatever term you prefer) then surely we have to engage with engage with discourse... not to look for categoric 'answers' but to explore possiobilities.

[Mark Berry]

ooops sorry missed a bit... the previous comment should have ready... not simply see 'Emerging Church' (or whatever term you prefer) as a Mission/Evangelism technique or model, then surely we have to engage with engage with discourse

[Existential Punk]

Ok, Ikon is reaching one part of the Kingdom of God - the intellectuals. BUT, they are open and inclusive to anyone. Just so happens they like to talk philosophy and theology. I do not think it's their job to be ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE. If there are those who don't like philosophy and threology discussions, then there are other communities to join. Ikon is being contextual and incarnational. I applaud them! They have praxis - peace and justice, the last supper, witness, etc. Have you been to N. Ireland? Intellectual conversations are a nice change for them considering all the years of the "Troubles". Ok, i've ranted enough. Great discussion and thanks!

[imagine!]

....Just to chip in some thoughts following Mark's contribution because I'm not sure I've been understood correctly:
1. I'm not against intellectual discussion and philosophy - I encourage an engagement with deep thinkers that connect theology and culture
2. I'm not suggesting an either/or missional engagement that is of necessity simplistic - let our mission practice be informed by the best thoughts
3. I offer the challenge that in a public forum for practitioners, could not other words and terms be found that represent the ideas. deep thinking, theology that has been considered that are accessible?
4. there is an issue of context: communicating to a post-grad audience of theologians then the strap-line for the BLAH would have been utterly appropriate - communicating to church leaders, church members, pastors, clergy wrestling with mission ata BLAH forum begs the question: do we only want middle class intellectuals doing church for middle-class intellectuals to hear this stuff? I read out the strapline to a colleague and deliberately stepped back from judgment to gauge the reaction and words like: "what the heck is that about?", "that sounds really pretentious", "I guess they only want certain people to come" came back to me. This colleague is just completing a PhD....

[Ben Edson]

Thanks for all the comments...fascinating...

I think that each blah... cannot aim to reach everyone - if it does then each one will lack definition and focus. Different blah's... reach different people and granted this one will probably only reach 'middle class intellectuals'. If this was the case for all of them I'd be concerned, but it is not.

Is this exclusive? Not if it's in a balanced programme that aims to be accessible to all people. Arguably if we didn't have one event like this every so often we'd be excluding 'middle class intellectuals' which considering the location that blah...mcr would be excluding those on our doorstep...

[Ben Edson]

I also think that it woul dbe helpful to move this discussion onto a wider focus rather than blah...and Ikon.

Is there a percieved problem that the emerging church is only accessible to white middle class intellectuals?

thoughts?

[Mark Berry]

Rihard, I do understand what you are saying... but thanks for the clarification it is helpful. I agree that sometimes conversations in/around Emerging Church can seem to be about name dropping obscure philosophers and myasmic language ;-)... I also agree with Ben, there is room even within the Blah programme for (in the arch bishs words) a mixed economy. I think Pete has a lot to say that we need to hear and is well worth going out and buying a thesaurus for!

[Daniel]

"Is there a percieved problem that the emerging church is only accessible to white middle class intellectuals?"

I'd be really interested to get a debate going on this. I've started goodness knows how many blog posts musing on this very topic but never finished one because it always ended up sounding too critical of the EC.

The point of the EC surely is about contextualisation, about being culturally relevant etc. A 'missional' or 'incarnational' understanding of this would involve getting to know other cultures and finding ways of bridging the message and the culture, a la Donavan's 'Christianity Rediscovered'.

But I remember some years ago being at a talk about the EC - actually might have just been about alt.worship, don't think I'd heard of the EC then - and the point being made by the leaders was that they weren't trying to be trendy or hip, but just finding ways of worship/church which felt authentic to them.

Now I think there's a tension between this 'authenticity' and 'missionality' (for want of a better word).

The problem is that pretty much *every* EC leader I've met, heard speak or read stuff by are white, middle class, well educated, ex-evangelical and part of a pomo subculture (which is a small proportion even of white, middle class, well educated folk). This of course isn't a problem in itself, UNLESS they are all primarily interested in 'authenticity' and 'being true to themselves', if this means only doing stuff that people like themselves will be attracted to.

Given how much pomos are enthusiastic about diversity and variety, the EC - as it's widely understood - isn't half monolithic and homogenous! Where are the ECs for the working class estates, for those with a more 'modernist' outlook, for those in rural areas, for those from atheist backgrounds, for those from other faiths, for those from different ethnic backgrounds, for asylum seekers, for those who hate dance music, etc?

And if there *were* different emerging churches for all these, and the many other sub-cultures, would that be a good thing?

[Liz]

If a pleb can say something...

I've never studied theology, but I'm not stupid and I love things like Blah! because they open up stuff to me that is usually reserved for the theologians, ministers etc

It can be a little tiresome to constantly face the attitude that intellectual rigour of any real degree is not for the lay person. Let's not trouble their little heads eh?

I can get dumbed down religion in any number of churches, sometimes it's nice to get something deeper. So on a personal level thanks Ben for Blah! - it's much appreciated.